Diemer v. Carlson

Pеtitioner, DIEMER, Charles Governor, CARLSON, and Joan

Arne H. Growe, Secretary of

Anderson

State, Respondents.

No. C4-96-873.

Supreme Court of Minnesota. 28, 1996.

June Diemer, Heights,

Charles Inver Grove Pro Se. Gilbert, Attorney Gen- I. Office of the

Alan eral, Paul, Respondents. St. OPINION KEITH, Chief Justice. pursu- Diemer filed

On of Charles 204B.44, § our ant to Minn.Stat. exercise recurring original jurisdiction to consider question authority of the qualified person to fill a judge, created the retirement Peti- Gerald W. Kalina. case the Honorable tion denied. Kalina, having served Gerald W. County Court for the of the Dakota appointed as a

period from 1972 District on of the First Judicial district elected to April 1983. He was thereafter general election of 1984 position His again the 1990 election. expire on current will February By letter dated resignation his to Governor Kalina submitted Carlson, announcing his intention to H. Arne retire governor issued February

On the date directing the and filed the order specified Judge Secre- same date the Office State, tary Growe.1 Joan Anderson addition, governor provided of the retirement governor gave notice ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍to this notice In retirement, vacancy to the Commission certification of court of Minn.Stat. 480B.01, response, on Judicial Selection. the court certified the governor. March to the On 490.126, By ap- § of subd. 2. notice The succеssor shall be elected for six Stat. secretary year general term at pointment also filed with the of the next governor year more than May appoint- state the appointment. Stacey judge ed Rex D. of the First District, Const, September Judicial effective 1996. VI, §§ art. 8. secretary The of state has indicated that she We had to occasion comment about the designate to does intend the office the authority appointment nature of con the in ballot upon governor by ferred the the constitu Hennepin County ex tion State rel. Bar petitioner seeks an order of 350, 119 Assoc. declaring appointment by that the the as follows: to nor successor Kalina is invalid directing controlling language [W]e hold that the secretary the to state grants governor our constitution to the seat the ballot 1996. He power by appointment to fill governor in vacancies contends that the action of the “in language provided the manner appointing a successor to the Kalina seat by law” contrary permissive grants in that it to the clear constitutional mandate fit, office, legislature authority, if it upon for the election to sees relying Carlson, (Minn. provide aрpoint- the manner in Page 488 N.W.2d 274 which the 1992). ment shall He be made. urges adopt this court to what “bright characterizes as line rule” to define 353, 119 Minn. at N.W.2d at 171. limit the circumstances which the 490.126, 2, relating Minn.Stat. subd. governor’s power may ex- effected, the manner in which vacancies are follow, ercised. For the reasons represents legislative implementation engage expansive decline the invitation to VI, provides: article section 8 and gratuitous judicial construction of unam- Any judge may Subd. 2. Vacancies. biguous provisions of the Minnesota Consti- application make governor written to the imрlemented by legislature. tution as governor thereupon for retirement. The Implicated judge’s shall direct the proceedings in these two retirement writ- are which, provisions of ten order when filed in the Minnesota Constitution: the office state, secretary of effect vacan- Term, shall office; Sec. 7. election. cy in the provided by be filled as term of of all shall be six law. years quali- and until their successors are 490.126, They shall be elected the voters fied.

from the area which are to serve terms, By its section provided by the manner law. requires governor applica to whom an Vacancy.

Sec. 8. Whenever is a there tion for retirement is made to direct that vacancy in judge office of filing retirement written order. The appoint in provided by shall the manner secretary that order with the of state is law a fill designated by operative statute as the act until a qualified. successor is elected and office is effected. considered, 2. At the time the Amdahl matter was Donald Barbeau filed for the office. ballot, legislature prerogative only had not exercised its Because he was the candidate on the implement provision the constitutional of then Barbeau was "elected” to the office. Neither challenged authority article section amended address- Amdahl nor Barbeau ing question office. In Amdahl for the incumbent, period Judge Rogers’ begin- the Honorable Harold death to the court, Rogers, term, ning January pro- N. of the district had filed of the new 1963—the ceeding quo for reelection in warranto was commenced for the opposition. had been nominated ascertaining without One sole entitlement to hold week before election on October the office after 1963. We appointee incumbent died аnd the entitled hold the office until appointed Douglas K. Amdahl on next November election more than one However, vacancy. to fill appointment. time his The election of Barbeau Judge Rogers’ nullity. between death declared unique eligibility to the may at a resignation be effective While date, justice, is identi future incumbent the executive order con- specified governor’s written upon unambiguous fied lan- flicted with clear issue, Const, In the matter at retirement. guage Minn. 9 which office, effective on vacancy in any the “extension of the term of authorizes February 31,1996, identified on was eligible for who becomes retirement 8, in the event of a Minn. Const. years expiration within three authorize, merely vacancy, but man does question term which is The selected.” a governor to dates the was of whether existed not ad- vacancy until a is fill the successor person to parties by or addressed vanced governor did The so qualified. elected court. result, and, May 17, 1996 as a on By operation of the same longer exists. Moreover, to ac- the extent the decision provision, appointee constitutional give knowledges responsibility our “to effect quali is elеcted and until a successor serve clear, unambiguous explicit, and ordi- general more than after a election held fied nary meaning language”4 of a consti- appointment 1998 —the directly provision, its dictates are tutional analysis comports This general election. contrary petitioner’s suggestion to the that Quie, opinion in Nelson v. 299 with our engage we revision to establish the (Minn.1980).3 N.W.2d 119 “bright line rule.” so-called petitioner contends that this To extent Page Finally, while the decision restates Carlson, v. Page 488 court’s decision requirement the constitutional that (1992) result, requires a 274 different 7, votеrs,5 by the article section elected argument the mark: that decision misses appointment process in the event of issue, entirely namely, different addressed nor eliminates neither frustrates gubernatorial order ex- propriety appointed judge obligation must tending justice’s pursuant of office —the (1990). at a later time 490.124, still stand albeit 2 The Minn.Stat. immediately.6 that, appointment than under circumstances rather court held attorney opinions general has two 3.Judge issued Wolner had been Herbert 6, expire origin question vary on 1981. which term which was-to of recent on However, mandatory existing re- interpretation he reached his because of the then constitu- their 1980, 21, Judge age 70 October provisions. Op.Att’y tirement statutory Gen. tional and 31, required 1990); October 17, was to retire on Wolner (July Op.Att’y Gen. 141d-2 No. 184d 1980, §§ 12 and (June 20, 1986). Although they are entitled to 1980, 7, (1980). July By letter of 490.125 consideration, they binding on are not careful application written for re- submitted his here, where, particularly as the issue the court 18, 1980, governor. July Qn tirement to the presented in and now was earlier decided directing written issued the Village governed by Quie. v. See Nelson retirement, Judge effective October Wolner's 12, Independent No. v. School Dist. Blaine 31, 1980, secretary of filed with the state. it 183, (1963). 121 N.W.2d Minn. filed, However, before the order individu- candidates for election to office als filed as 241, Connolly, v. 488 N.W.2d 4. See Rice declaratory judg- by Judge In a held Wolner. Holm, (Minn. 1992) (citing ex Gardner v. State rel. court, in the district ment action commenced 129, 52, Minn. 62 N.W.2d primary enjoined cancellation of the Holm, Putnam v. 172 Minn. See also State ex rel. time, election, but, refused to at the same (1927). 162, 215 N.W. 200 enjoin gubernatorial appointment. We Wolner held 278-79, Carlson, citing Page 488 N.W.2d at v. "vacancy” meaning within Minn. created a Meisinger, 258 v. State ex rel. LaJesse VI, § 8 as October Const. art. Enger v. is the Holm, 154, 157, N.W.2d 213 Minn. duty ap governor's pointed person was to serve until successor qualified after the elec elected and Hennepin County Bar Assoc. ex rel. In State occasion to vote candi tion. There "no approval the 1956 with noted general election to be dates this office at the article, among amendments to held November 1980." Nelson length time was the extension of N.W.2d at 120. They the useful the event of ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍serves fied. shall be elected the voters maintaining continuity from the area are to serve availability provided by services which the manner law. severely might otherwise be curtailed construing Our fundamental aim the con- delay qualifi- occasioned the election and give is to stitution ascertain and effect to the Were this court cation of successor. adopting Lyons intent of the it. than engage expansive rather literal Spaeth, issue, reading provisions petition- constitution, In adopting proposes, er the result would be that clearly framers intended that elections presently should constitute the method of se- would become and remain vacant for the lecting judges, long have held that we period September 1996 to E.g., be the case. Statе ex rel. LaJesse v. date on which successful candidates 297, 299, Meisinger, 103 N.W.2d at the 1996 election take office. No such generally See Minnesota in expressed implied intention is or the con- (Democratic) Constitutional Debates 489-509 contrary, or stitution statutes —on the it is (1857); Proceedings Debates and the Con- precisely potential provisions that which the Territory stitutional Convention designed are to avoid. (Republican) Minnesota 400-07 We Because we conclude that have further that concluded constitutional authority appointing in was within his a suc- provisions gubernatorial providing ap- vacancy fill cessor to which would occur pointment vacancy judicial fill in a office Kalina, Judge deny the retirement of provi- should be construed as subordinate to petition for relief.7 providing sions judges for the election of Carlson, Page Petition denied. Holm, (citing Enger PAGE, (dissenting). Justice Minn. Therefore, when an election is scheduled Because we have that vacancy course and occurs after selecting constitutes the method of process begun, the election has there is no judges in this state and the office justification undermining pro- the election here can be filled election in the by gubernatorial appointment. cess course, respectfully I dissent. The appointment, filling nor’s governor may vacancy by Before a fill a Kalina, occupied currently by Judge subverts appointment, vacancy. there must first be a VI, in violation of article (‘Whenever See Minn. Const. art. section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution. vacancy there is a in the office of my write also to voice concern about the provid shall manner disregard court’s almost casual insti- ed person law to fill the vacan process. historical decision-making tution’s cy qualified.” until a successor is elected and VI, 7 of Article section the Minnesota added.)) Con- (Emphasis case, In this while the provides: stitution vacancy court concludes that of all February term office shall be six Kalina’s office occurred on years will, quali- vacancy fact, and until their are successors not occur qualifications between the and the election of a to evaluate the of candi- VI, (1955) § successor. Minn. Const. art. judicial positions. Clearly, dates that provided that the "successor shall be elected at what new article intended to ac- annual first electiоn that occurs more than complish. days thirty hap have shall Minn. 119 N.W.2d at 173. Const, pened.” pro § for, vided to require, continues respondents 7. The filed a have motion dismiss "at next more petition prejudice. with There is no basis for appointment.” than one after such We stat dismissal and we have addressed ed as follows: arguments the merits of the advanced. complexity society The imperative of modern makes it ample given opportunity that it”). example, understood For Black’s determining that August until occurred, Dictionary re- ‘va- already Law word “[t]he states 490.126, cancy,’ applied positions, оn Minn.Stat. to official lies when means, sense, of written provides ordinary popular its directing judge’s effects unoccupied.” Black’s Law judge. It is the (6th office of 1990). Finally, Dictionary 1548 ed. rea- courts, however, not province of the exclusive can son common sense dictate that there interpret constitution. legislature, a judicial office where the Hamm, 380-81, State v. duly occupied judge. office is (Minn.1988) (refusing to allow Here, will the office not be unoccu- declaring statute amended statute pied until the effective date of six-person jury misdemeanor permitting regardless of resignation, Kalina’s supreme court cases unconstitutional gave notice or when when “jury” interpreted the word governor filed written order with the meaning body “a Minnesota Constitution Secretary pursuant of State persons”) (subsequently overruled of twelve Moreover, result amendment); also see regarding the court reaches here when the Gomez, the State Minnesota Women occurs, vacancy in the office raises serious (Minn.1995) (discuss- 17, 11 28 n. Judge continuing Kalina’s au- doubts about legisla- limitations of the ing constitutional thority judge a the act as is source —what stating legislature’s the author- ture and Judge authority tо legal of Kalina’s continue equated ity be with to enact statutes cannot acting judge as his a has vacated government’s power). the office? consistently va- held that no This court prior all of our eases indicate that Because judge a cancy office of until occurs judge vacancy there in the office of was resignation resigning judge’s becomes effec- appointed a governor purportedly when 119, Quie, Nelson N.W.2d tive. 17, May “ replacement Kalina on (Minn.1980) vacancy in (concluding that ‘a authority at that time to governor lacked meaning of judge’ within the the office Const, appointment. an See Minn. art. make Const, VI, § art. 8” created Minn. is Further, VI, Kali- the time judge on which the retirement a date resignation on na’s becomes effective effective);1 State ex rel. Dosland becomes 1996, vacant, 31, the office becomes Holm, 502, 218, 505, Minn. 279 N.W. regularly election for scheduled (1938) vacancy (concluding that a by Judge will have occupied position open until the is does not occur opening of the commenced with the noting effective and the retirement becomes July 2, 1996. There- period for the office on gives provision that the constitutional fore, desig- office must be believe that this right appoint successors and that nated on the November ballot power to vacancies not confer “does interested, qualified can- petitioner and other vacancy”). declare a be to file for election didates should allowed Determining vacancy does occur that a not to the office. com- resignation effect also until the takes interpreting article VI A line cases plain meaning ports both the with supports this the Minnesota Constitution reality. ex rel. See State term example, in rel. Babcock State ex result. For Brown, 22 Baxter v. Minn. Black, (1875), judge, a Minn. ordinary popular (concluding that “the by election facie, would be filled whose office “prima meaning” is the sense word 1875,resigned on November October used it must taken to have been which which, vacancy appoint- constitution, governor filled the as it was The in our state and, elec- understood as ment October people, made should be vacancy when occurs. cussion of 1. Minnesota Statutes section decided Nelson v. was effect when the court at 120. dis- mentioned in court’s but judge reasoning also elected. The cоurt’s and ultimate decision were Black, appointed who had contended that been office here should postponed election in election should have been filled course. year place because the election took within A similar situation in the arose case of time, days vacancy. At Id. Holm, Enger v. 6 N.W.2d 101 provided: constitution justice associate this any judge In case the office of shall be- court became candidate for reelection at expiration come vacant before the election scheduled to held on Novem- eleсted, regular term for which he was 3, 1942, ber died September but vacancy by appointment by shall be filled justice resigned and another associate until a successor elected October three months before his qualified. And such successor shall be term was end. The filled both elected at the first annual election that by appointment, though pri- vacancies even days thirty occurs more than after the mary had taken had happened. shall have been In determining scheduled. who should Const, supreme Minn. hold the two court seats art. 10. In as of the inter- Monday first preting provision, analogous сourt de- Const, (“Whenever machinery clined to arrest “the there pur- is a has been set in the office of motion” pose electing nor provided by shall successor manner law a Id. at to fill the until qualified. “principal purpose” noted that the successor provide is to successor shall be elected for six next course more provisions and that year providing appoint- than appointment.”) one the “applicable court ment to fill only stated: vacancies are judicial where vacancies in the office cannot put [The section] was in the constitution to by, be judges filled in regular provide the exceptional case of a vacan course.” at Id. at N.W.2d 102. The cy regular case where the order of —for court concluded that terms, the elected in terms, and elections for such occupy November 1942 were to entitled the by upon vacancy broken before the end Monday office as of the first in January regular judge for which the was 1943,2 and held that where occurs elected, by necessity and the to elect be during an at which election the office is to be fore the election would come on under the regular course, filled in the the office is to be general rule. The election mentioned filled in regular election the course. Id. the section is not one which comes in the at 6 N.W.2d at 103. If the elections, court’s regular provid course of such reasoning right and ultimate decision were in §by ed for but an election which be Enger, judicial office here should be filled necessary by happening comes regular in election vacancy; and in order that such an elec coming thus on at a time different Hennepin In rel. County State ex Bar would, from at which a judge Ass’n v. regular and natural of things, course (1962), remaining priоr while true to our * * elected *. decisions, court reached a different re- Minn, sult, Consequently, election, at 338-39. deferring the court general where a occur, held that regu- the election took election to but the voters had lar course and would have been held had insufficient time to consider the candidates vacancy and, therefore, there been no In make an informed choice. properly election was held and the judge district court died one week before the judge election, take general should office. at 339. If Id. had after he filed for governor appointed 2. The individuals the Monday seats were on an interim basis until the first permitted supreme did fill the two court nomi- the court’s in Nelson the 1962 and was decision reeleetion interpretation the court’s opposition. Id. at nated without with the consistent result that the gener- days N.W.2d at 170. Four before by appointment ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍nor should not be able to vacancy by al filled the defeat the elect and, day, a later that same can- officers where an election filed a to be elected didate reasonably course is available to determine a position general election. The vacant Nelson, In made successor. court ballot, placed name was on the candidate’s unexplained inconsistent departure was “elected.” The court concluded Nelson, this line In of cases. a district appointed should remain up court who would have been general occur- until the next reelection November of 1980 faced manda- appoint- ring after his more than tory retirement effective October ment, reasoning that voters had insuffi just days At before election. qualifications cient time evaluate time the was created on October 364, 119 аt 177- candidates. Id. at N.W.2d already begun had and a determining 78. The court stated that primary had been held determine the whether an election in the course any analysis, judge’s successor. Without forward, ought test go should “The court concluded that the had con- opportunity whether has been a fair there duty stitutional intelligent to make an choice.” Id. voters to fill the “there no rationale is This occasion vote for candidates for this office holding with the in State ex consistent court’s at the election to held on Novem- Brown, rel. 22 Minn. 482 Baxter 4,1980.” ber Id. at 120. Brown court stated: acknowledgment, anаlysis, no no With general purpose of the constitu- While explanation, no long- the court overruled elective, is to make offices tion standing precedent. gave rea- provisions disregarding Enger, son for Black and part qualification 10. As a the court held that successors were to be evidently last sentence of the section is determined course inserted, appreciation great im- October, to fill vacancies that arose before offices, portance of the con- regular November scheduled election electors, necessity sequent before gave course. The court also no reason for them, being upon fill shall have called to rejecting the Amdahl conclusion that court’s enquiry time and as such for consideration an course should be election will them to act with enable reasonable held to determine successor when “there prudence good premises. and sense for opportunity a fair been voters was, sought provided against The evil Amdahl, intelligent make an choice.”3 therefore, from an such would result Minn, at The court at 119 N.W.2d hap- soon too gener- for power principle “substitutes vacancy, pening of a rather than such as instability, unpredictability, politiciza- ates deferring from would follow election too dangers sought to and all the other long. precedent” when it avoided the doctrine of reasoning If the Id. at 484. court’s ignores prior decisions to reach desired ultimate were decision justification “in- of either result without office here should be filled elec- premises changed or circum- accurate factual tion v. Commissioner stances.” Friedman (Minn. every interpreting Safety, In article VI case Public 1991) J., (Coyne, dissenting) (quoting by the court Geof- Minnesota Constitution dеcided frey Stone, Precedent, The Amendment adoption R. between Although specify was the submitted to court that this the court in Nelson did not briefs rejecting, language it was is referring. in Amdahl it phrase the court was opinion district court and the clear Process, guidance and Evolution in Constitutional would heed the the Amdahl Doctrine, Pub.Pol’y 11 Harv.J.L. & 72-73 ambiguities court that should resolve light reasoning of the court’s language “giving in the constitutional ef Black, Enger, decisions and Am- reached language fect to the of the constitution when dahl, simply wrongly v. Nelson de- destroying pur that can be without done cavalierly disregаrds long history cided pose accomplished by to be intended its controlling authority.4 180; adoption.” at Id. 119 N.W.2d at confidently proclaims that Bjornson, v. see also Reed sections at issue here are clear 258-59, 253 102, 104 (stating N.W. that overlooking unambiguous, while that its any meaning doubt as constitu application of these sections clashes with the resolved, provision tional “should be wherev intent of the framers of the constitution. See so, reasonably possible er in way to do Minn, 352, 119 N.W.2d at forward the evident with which the (“A construction of our constitution must be provision adopted”) (quoting Bldg. Home given that will not defeat the obvious will of Blaisdell, & Loan Ass’n U.S. people.”). The Amdahl court more sen (1934) (Suth- 54 S.Ct. 78 L.Ed. 413 sibly admitted these sections are “not as erland, J., dissenting)); Taylor Taylor, clear as we would like to have it and that no (Gil. 81) (1865) (concluding Minn. 107 place upon matter what construction we it reject interpretation 360, courts should a literal problems some will be created.” Id. The court’s failure to meaning constitution where the of the clarity acknowledge this lack of results in an words, literally, understood not in accor- interpretation potential that creates the spirit” dance with the “reason and flagrant absurd rеsults and abuses. For ex law). We have under constitu- ample, up whose seat is reelection tion that elections constitute give course could notice to the selecting judges method ap- and that the months advance will she/he pointment provision applies only where the resign on December 31. Under court’s ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍vacancy cannot be filled reasoning, occur will before regular course. The our constitu framers of opens for the seat and the tion appointing judges debated merits of appoint person mandated to fill clearly electing expressed versus vаcancy, thereby defeating preference their judges. If brazen, process. Even more an incumbent change in the constitution is deemed desir who fails bid reelection his/her able, changed by it amending “should resign day could after the lost itself, by judicial interpreta Constitution which, according interpretation the court’s Buswell, tion.” State constitution, would force the (Minn.1990) (Yetka, J., dissenting), cert. de nullify a successor and Minn, nied, Amdahl, 111 results. U.S. S.Ct. See at J., (Gallagher, N.W.2d at 180 dissenting). L.Ed.2d 216 Maynard Pirsig, 4. While Proposed the constitution was amended See after E. Amendment decided, Enger Black Judiciary were the amendment Article the Minnesota Constitu of of change quoted relevant here made no substantive Minn.L.Rev. Minn, length other than to increase the N.W.2d at appointment adopt plan,” time between an to fill a Recommendations the “Missouri change process and the successor. This where the selects candidate intended by to eliminate the situation where a va based on a slate of names submitted non cancy partisan judicial subsequent occurs between the commission and only elections in a in which an election in elections are held determine whether or office, appointed judgе course not scheduled. not should remain 358-59, (citing rejected. Pirsig, supra, Minn. at According were Erickson, ly, application appointment provision, Flakne 6 N.W.2d 40 amended, principle previously The fundamental of an elected as construed, remains the same—as unchanged: apply remains "Vacancies in not it does election in Black, judicial by appointment are by to be filled course is See available. present constitution.” Minn. at under 338-39. people court should left free choose Having “[T]he been elected this Minnesota, they strong feelings have the men whom [аnd women] I are people of participate property.” direct- the issues of life and De- citizens’ about the Proceedings ly in those who serve bates the Constitutional the selection of However, Territory judicial government. Convention Minnesota branch understand, to, (Republican) and do am insensitive judicial very elections real concerns must be ad-

raise. While these concerns

dressed, extraordinary they justify do not

step subverting our constitution. of our constitution intended

framers judicial filling

primary method to be used and that

offices is election

appointments only occur “ex- should excep- ceptional case.” This case not the WORKS, ARROWHEAD CONCRETE tional ease. INC., Petitioner, Appellant, My today read dissent should not be sim- expression my personal ply as an view WILLIAMS, Commissioner, Charles W. judicial filled. More how offices should be Minnesota Pollution Control my important personal me than view Respondent. Agency, judicial election versus decision-making integrity pro- is the No. C7-95-2316. will be relied on

cess Appeals Court Minnesota. current members of the court are court, guard zealously must gone. As a July which we make decisions and prior and their ana- adhere to our decisions clearly

lytical framework unless were decided, unjust, or

wrongly are absurd or underlying or the law

unless circumstances changed. None of reasons for these

ignoring prior present our decisions is here.

Every by this court since relevant ‍‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‌​​​‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‍decision Nelson, exception of

Black in with the

supports the conclusion that the framers of that, under circum-

our constitution intended presented

stances similar

case, to be filled case, In this Nelson, court, acknowledg-

inas without

ment, ignores analysis, explanation, again or longstanding precedent.

our fiat, court,

Today, erodes judicial process “at the whole

our and strikes themselves,

system governing propriety as it at the of an

as much does Judiciary,”

elective Minnesota Constitution (Democratic)

al Debates our constitutional undermines

system the obvious will of the to “defeat

people.” 264 Minn. at

N.W.2d at 170.

Case Details

Case Name: Diemer v. Carlson

Court Name: Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date Published: Jun 28, 1996

Citation: 550 N.W.2d 875

Docket Number: C4-96-873

Court Abbreviation: Minn.