Pavek v. Simon

Background

Two individual voters and two Democratic Party committees sued Steven Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota Secretary of State. They challenge Minnesota Statute § 204D.13(2), which they call the “Ballot Order Statute.” According to the opinion, the statute requires major-party candidates in state general elections to be listed in reverse order based on their parties’ average vote totals in the last state general election. The plaintiffs allege that listing candidates later on the ballot creates an electoral disadvantage and violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

The plaintiffs moved for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. A preliminary injunction is a court order issued before final judgment that temporarily requires or prohibits specified conduct. The Secretary of State separately moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The opinion does not decide either of those motions.

Motion to File an Amicus Brief

Honest Elections Project moved for permission to file an amicus brief. An amicus brief is a submission by a nonparty that offers information or legal arguments to assist the court. The proposed brief would support the Secretary of State’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction and would address the proper level of constitutional review, whether the ballot-order law satisfies that review, and whether the plaintiffs have Article III standing. Article III standing is the requirement that a plaintiff have a legally sufficient connection to the dispute to invoke federal-court jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs argued that the proposed brief was late, unhelpful, duplicative of the Secretary of State’s arguments, and concerned standing even though the Secretary of State had not raised standing in the motion to dismiss. The Secretary of State did not oppose the motion.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that permission to file an amicus brief is discretionary and depends on whether the proposed filing is timely, useful, or otherwise warrants consideration. The court acknowledged that some of Honest Elections Project’s arguments repeated the Secretary of State’s arguments and that the motion came late in the briefing schedule.

The court nevertheless found the proposed arguments about Article III standing potentially helpful. The court stated that federal courts must consider subject-matter jurisdiction, including standing, even when the parties have not raised the issue. The court also concluded that the timing concerns could be addressed by limiting the brief and allowing the plaintiffs a limited response before the scheduled hearing.

Disposition

The court GRANTED Honest Elections Project’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the Secretary of State’s opposition to the plaintiffs’ preliminary-injunction motion. The organization was ordered to file the brief within 24 hours of the order, with a 5,000-word limit and compliance with specified District of Minnesota local rules. The plaintiffs were given 14 days after filing to respond, also subject to a 5,000-word limit. The court permitted no reply briefing. This order concerned only permission to file the brief; it did not resolve the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge, the motion to dismiss, or the preliminary-injunction motion.