Craig v. Simon

Background

The case arose after Adam Weeks, the Legal Marijuana Now Party candidate for Minnesota’s Second Congressional District, died on September 21, 2020. Minnesota Statutes Section 204B.13 required postponing the election for a seat when a major political party candidate died within 79 days before the general election. The statute also prohibited certification of votes cast in the general election for that office and required a special election the following February.

Representative Angela Craig, who was running for reelection, and Jenny Winslow Davies, a voter who had already cast her ballot, challenged the statute. They alleged that it was preempted—that is, overridden because it conflicted with federal law—and that it violated constitutional rights. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon announced that voters should continue voting but that votes in the congressional race would not be counted. Tyler Kistner, the Republican candidate for the seat, moved to intervene as a defendant.

Intervention

The court held that Kistner had standing, meaning a sufficient personal stake in the dispute to participate in federal court. An injunction or declaration preventing enforcement of Section 204B.13 could affect his candidacy and campaign. The court found that his alleged injury was concrete, particularized, and imminent; traceable to the challenged law; and likely redressable by a favorable decision.

The court also found that Kistner met the requirements for intervention as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). His motion was timely because it was filed about 48 hours after the complaint. He had an interest in the election and enforcement of the statute, that interest could be impaired if he could not participate, and his interests could differ from those of the Secretary of State. The court therefore granted Kistner’s motion to intervene as a party defendant.

Preliminary injunction

A preliminary injunction is an order issued before final judgment to prevent imminent harm while the case continues. The court applied four factors: likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the balance of harms, and the public interest.

Likelihood of success on preemption claim

The plaintiffs argued that Section 204B.13 conflicted with 2 U.S.C. § 7, which establishes the Tuesday after the first Monday in November of every even-numbered year as the election date for members of the United States House of Representatives. For 2020, that date was November 3.

The court recognized that federal law permits states to set the timing of elections to fill a vacancy caused by a failure to elect, or by the death, resignation, or incapacity of a person elected. But the court interpreted that federal vacancies provision as applying to a vacant congressional seat or representation, not to a vacancy in a political party’s nomination. Minnesota’s Second Congressional District was still represented by Representative Craig, so there was no vacancy of the kind covered by the federal statute.

The court concluded that Minnesota’s law conflicted with the federally required November 3 election date. It rejected the defendants’ arguments that the candidate’s death created an exception or an “exigent circumstance.” The court reasoned that the death did not inevitably prevent the election of a representative and that Minnesota could not create a failure to elect by refusing to certify the election results. The plaintiffs therefore demonstrated a likelihood of success on their federal-preemption claim.

The plaintiffs also alleged that the Secretary of State’s statements about not counting votes unconstitutionally burdened voters’ rights. The court did not decide that claim because its preemption conclusion made it unnecessary to reach the constitutional issue.

Other injunction factors

The court found irreparable harm because Craig would face additional campaign burdens and expenses if a special election were required, while Davies’s vote would not count and she would have to vote again. The court also found that excluding votes already cast would restrict voting rights in a way that money damages could not remedy.

The balance of harms favored an injunction because, without one, no vote cast in the November congressional race would count. With an injunction, all properly cast votes, including votes for Weeks, would be counted. Although the Secretary of State argued that an injunction could create confusion and harm the state, the court found those concerns insufficient to outweigh the harms to voters and candidates.

The public interest also favored the injunction because voters have a strong interest in fair elections, having their votes counted, and maintaining congressional representation. The court rejected the argument that the Purcell doctrine—which cautions federal courts against changing election rules close to an election—required abstention. It found that the injunction restored and maintained the status quo under federal law rather than fundamentally changing the election rules.

Order

The court granted Kistner’s motion to intervene and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. It enjoined Secretary of State Steve Simon, in his official capacity, from enforcing Section 204B.13 as to the November 3, 2020 Second Congressional District race; from refusing to give legal effect to ballots cast in that race; and from telling voters that their ballots would not be counted. The court ordered judgment to be entered accordingly.