2024 Minnesota Election Laws
Page 255
State statute that precluded issuance of certificate of election until state courts had finally decided a pending election contest applied to elections for
United States Senate; applicability of Statuteโs contest tolling provision, under which governor refused to issue certificate, was dependent upon existence
of a court of proper jurisdiction which could finally determine the contest, and despite exclusive authority of Senate to decide contests initiated pursuant
to general election laws of the state, in state courts. Franken v. Pawlenty, 762 N.W. 2d 558 (Minn. 2009).
209.13-209.22 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1]
NOTES AND DECISIONS UNDER
209.01
Procedures to be followed when a candidate claims that certain write-in votes were erroneously disregarded is set for in this chapter. Op. Atty. Gen. 64B,
November 10, 1961.
209.02
Absent compliance with procedural requirements, court lacks power to entertain contest. Schmitt v. McLaughlin, 275 N.W. 2d 587 (Minn. 1979). See also
Petrafeso v. McFarlin, 296 Minn. 120, 207 N.W. 2d 343 (1973); Holmen v. Miller, 296 Minn. 99, 206 N.W. 2d 916 (1973).
Strict compliance with procedural requirements necessary under this chapter. OโLoughlin v. Otis, 276 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. 1979).
Statements made in good faith, after investigation, and essentially true were proper and did not invalidate election. Id.
Because the right to contest an election is purely statutory, the provisions of the statute relating to filing and serving notice of contest must be strictly
followed. Lebens v. Harbeck, 308 Minn. 433, 243 N.W. 2d 128 (1976).
Where contestant did not validly serve notice of contest upon contestee within seven days after completion of canvass, as required by state, trial court
properly dismissed the proceeding for want of jurisdiction. Id.
When contestant made no effort to perform his obligation to cause service of notice of contest and when contestee had no actual notice, there were no
facts from which to infer a substantial attempt to conform to statutory requirements for commencement of an election contest even though it was the
obligation of the auditor under this section to mail the notice to the contestee. In re Johnson, 231 N.W. 2d 926 (1975).
After an election has been held, the statutory regulations are generally construed as directory and such rule of construction is in accord with the policy of
this state, which from its beginning has been that, in the absence of fraud or bad faith or constitutional violation, an election which has resulted in a fair
and free expression of the will of the legal voters upon the merits will not be invalidated because of a departure from the statutory regulations governing
the conduct of the election except in those cases where the legislature has clearly and unequivocally expressed an intent that a specific statutory provision
is an essential jurisdictional prerequisite and that a departure therefrom shall have the drastic consequences or invalidity. Id. violation of statute regulating
the conduct of an election is not fatal to the election in absence of proof that the irregularity affected the outcome or was produce of fraud or bad faith.
Hahn v. Graham, 302 Minn. 407, 225 N.W. 2d 385 (1975).
To sustain charge that contestee of election failed to make timely filing of financial statement, contestant must show that such omissions were deliberate,
serious, and material violations of the provision of the election law. Moulton v. Newton, 274 Minn. 547, 144 N.W. 2d 706 (1966).
Must be a clear abuse of discretion to void election. Moulton v. Newton, Supra; Munell v. Rollette, 275 Minn. 93, 145 N.W. 2d 531 (1966).
Notice of contest must state jurisdictional grounds, and a deficiency thereof cannot be supplied by amendment. Hancock v. Lewis, 265 Minn. 519, 122
N.W. 2d 592 (1963).
The bare allegation that possible errors could have occurred in counting of ballots does not establish jurisdiction in election contest. Christenson v. Allen,
264 Minn. 295, 119 N.W. 2d 35 (1963).
In absence of affidavits district court did not acquire jurisdiction of election contest. Franson v. Carlson, 272 Minn. 376, 137 N.W. 2d 835 (1965).
When members of an election board do not qualify as de jure officers but come into office under color of authority and are so held out to the public that
the persons having occasion to deal with the board will recognize them as the official body assigned to handle the affairs of the election, the election
board will be held to be defacto board. In Re Contest of Election of Vetsch, 245 Minn. 229, 72 N.W. 2d 652 (1955).
Since the purpose of the election laws is to assure an honest and fair election, an election will not necessarily be held to be valid in the absence of a
showing of actual fraud if under certain circumstances the election is conducted in such manner as to provide an opportunity for fraud. Held, where in a
given election precinct the violations of the election laws, even though they be only directory in nature, were so substantial and so numerous that doubt
and suspicion were cast upon the election and the integrity of the voter therefrom was impeached, that the vote of the precinct was void, and the votes
cast therat were properly rejected. Id.
It is the general rule that, before an election is held, statutory provisions regulating the conduct of the election will usually be treated as mandatory and
their observance may be insisted upon and enforced. In Re Order of Sammons, 242 Minn. 345, 65 N.W. 2d 198 (1954).
Where elections are fairly and honestly conducted without fraud or illegal voting, they will not be set aside for mere irregularities. State ex rel. Burnquist v.
Independent Consolidated Sch. District No. 46, 242 Minn. 320, 65 N.W. 2d 117 (1954).
Where defects in election documents or procedure go to jurisdiction to hold election, or where defects and irregularities therein are so material that
qualified voters are deprived of fair opportunity to vote therat, election proceedings will be held invalid and election results nullified. Id.
Proceedings brought to avoid an election for violation of Corrupt Practices statute is a special proceeding but is tried as a civil action and the usual rules
governing the trial of civil action prevail. Bank v. Egan, 240 Minn. 192, 60 N.W. 2d 257 (1953). But see OโLoughlin v. Otis, 276 N.W. 2d 38 (Minn. 1979).
For discussion of this section see Youngdale v. Eastvold, 232 Minn. 134, 44 N.W. 2d 459 (1950); Phillips v. Erickson, 248 Minn. 452, 80 N.W. 2d 513 (1957).
Court was without jurisdiction to entertain contest involving nomination or election to office of representative in Congress on grounds of near error.
Youngdale v. Eastvold, 232 Minn. 134, 44 N.W. 2d, 459 (1950).
In election contest, burden is upon contestant to prove that ballots produced at trial are in same condition as when canvassed by precinct election board,
and it is for trial court to determine that fact, before accepting results of a recount of such ballots. Sullivan v. Ebner, 195 Minn. 232, 262 N.W. 574 (1935).
Public utilities commission is not authorized to contest election or have recount, nor to pay for recount out of commission funds. Op. Atty. Gen. 28A-3,
December 17, 1962.
It is the duty of the city to defend declared result of local option election when contest is under this section. Op. Atty. Gen. 218C-1, March 21, 1947.