Pavek v. Simon

Background

The plaintiffs are Madeline Pavek, Ethan Sykes, DSCC, and DCCC. The defendant is Steven Simon, in his official capacity as the Minnesota Secretary of State. The case concerns Minn. Stat. § 204D.13, subdivision 2 (2018), called the “Ballot Order” statute. That law required major political party candidates in Minnesota general elections to be listed on the ballot in reverse order based on the average number of votes their parties received in the previous state general election.

On June 15, 2020, the court preliminarily enjoined, meaning temporarily prohibited, Secretary Simon from enforcing the statute. Instead, it ordered a lottery assigning Minnesota’s four current major political parties a single statewide ballot order for the 2020 general election. The court also denied the Secretary’s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

After that ruling, Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the Republican National Committee, and the Republican Party of Minnesota were allowed to intervene as defendants. They appealed the preliminary injunction and opposed the later request to stay the case.

The Motion to Stay

The plaintiffs and Secretary Simon jointly moved to stay further proceedings until the end of the 2021 regular session of the Minnesota Legislature, scheduled to end on May 17, 2021. A stay pauses court proceedings. They argued that a stay would conserve judicial resources, avoid unnecessary litigation expenses, and give the Legislature an opportunity to address the constitutional concerns identified in the preliminary-injunction order. They also argued that pausing the case would provide certainty for voters and election administrators during the 2020 general election.

The intervening defendants argued that the delay was unjustified because the possibility of legislative action was too speculative. They noted that the ballot-order statute had existed for decades and argued that a more appropriate stay would suspend enforcement of the preliminary injunction while their appeal proceeded.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that district courts have broad discretion to stay proceedings to manage their dockets and conserve time and effort. Relevant considerations included conserving judicial resources, controlling the docket, ensuring a just determination, avoiding duplicative work and wasted resources, and considering hardship to the party opposing the stay.

The court found a stay warranted because two bills had been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature that would repeal the current ballot-order language and replace it with a name-rotation system. Under that proposed system, major political party candidates would be listed first on Minnesota’s general-election ballot approximately the same number of times throughout the state. The court stated that enactment of either bill would provide the precise relief the plaintiffs sought.

The court also found that a stay would avoid potentially significant litigation expenses while preserving the court’s ability to resolve the case if the Legislature did not act. It determined that any hardship to the intervening defendants was extremely minimal because they had already appealed the preliminary injunction, and the stay of proceedings before the district court did not affect their appellate rights.

Disposition

Judge Nelson granted the plaintiffs’ and Secretary Simon’s Joint Motion to Stay further proceedings. The court stayed the case until May 17, 2021—the last scheduled day of the 2021 regular Minnesota legislative session—or until legislation that mooted or otherwise resolved the case was enacted, whichever occurred first.