Independence-Alliance Party of Minnesota v. Simon

Background

Independence-Alliance Party of Minnesota and Hugh McTavish brought a civil-rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota secretary of state, or his successor. They challenged Minn. Stat. § 204B.07, subd. 4, which requires people signing a minor-party candidate’s nominating petition to swear that they “do not intend to vote at the primary election for the office for which this nominating petition is made.” A false oath can be prosecuted as perjury.

The plaintiffs alleged that the oath deterred some voters from signing petitions, required signature-gatherers to spend time explaining its meaning, and made it harder for minor-party candidates to obtain enough signatures for the ballot. They claimed that this burdened their First Amendment right to expressive association. The Party sought to invalidate the statute in all its applications, making its challenge a facial challenge.

Hugh McTavish’s Claim

The court held that McTavish’s claim was moot, meaning that events had eliminated the live controversy. Public records showed that he obtained the required signatures, submitted a nominating petition, and appeared on the November 2022 gubernatorial ballot. The time for collecting signatures and submitting the petition had also passed.

The court found no allegations showing a reasonable expectation that McTavish would again be subject to the challenged statute. His specific allegations concerned the 2022 gubernatorial election, while the allegation that he was a potential future Party candidate did not describe concrete plans or when a future candidacy might occur. The exception for disputes that are likely to recur but end before judicial review therefore did not preserve his claim.

The court ordered that McTavish’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Party’s Claim

The court concluded that the Party plausibly alleged standing because its allegations concerned the oath requirement generally, the requested relief would affect all elections, and the Party had repeatedly used the nominating-petition process. The Party’s claim was therefore not dismissed as moot based on the end of McTavish’s 2022 candidacy.

The court instead evaluated the Party’s facial challenge under the Anderson-Burdick framework. That framework weighs the burden an election rule places on voting or associational rights against the state’s reasons for imposing the rule. Severe burdens receive more demanding review; lesser burdens generally may be justified by important, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory state interests.

The court found that the complaint alleged, at most, lesser burdens. It did not specify how many voters refused to sign because of the oath, how often questions about the oath arose, how long explanations took, or how the oath caused the Party’s past failures to place candidates on the ballot. The Party had succeeded in seven of ten described attempts to use the nominating-petition process. The court also found implausible the allegation that voters faced a credible prosecution risk, noting that the complaint identified no prosecution for violating the oath.

The Secretary identified interests in protecting the integrity and reliability of elections, preventing distortion of the electoral process, avoiding overcrowded ballots and frivolous candidacies, and discouraging “party raiding.” The court found these interests sufficiently important to justify the oath requirement. It also found no plausible allegation that the requirement was unreasonable or discriminatory. The court rejected the Party’s arguments that the oath served no purpose or improperly treated minor parties differently from major parties.

The court therefore held that the Party’s complaint did not state a plausible claim for relief under the governing election-law framework. The order dismissed the Party’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Order

The court granted Secretary Simon’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed McTavish’s complaint without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the Independence-Alliance Party of Minnesota’s complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Judgment was ordered to be entered accordingly.