STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN SUPREME COURT
A04-1955
Republican Party of
Minnesota, et al.,
Petitioners,
vs.
Patrick H. O’Connor, in his
official
capacity as Hennepin County
Auditor,
Respondent,
Dorothy McClung, in her
official
capacity as Ramsey County
Auditor,
Respondent,
Daniel J. Hall, in his
official
capacity as Olmsted County
Auditor,
Respondent.
O R D E R
On October 15, 2004, petitioners filed a petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (2002), requesting the court to:
(1)declare
that the names and party affiliations of election judges are public data under
the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, and compel respondents (and other
similarly situated government authorities) to immediately release that
information; and
(2)pursuant
to Minn. Stat. § 204B.19 (2002), declare that respondents (and
other similarly situated government authorities) must take all necessary steps
to ensure that no more than half of the election judges in any one precinct are
affiliated with the same political party.
Minnesota Statutes § 204B.44
provides that in the case of an election for state or federal office, an
individual may file with this court a petition to correct certain “errors,
omissions or wrongful acts which have occurred or are about to occur.”
Included are errors and omissions of individuals, specifically including county
auditors and municipal clerks, “charged with any duty concerning an
election.” Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(d)
(2002).
Minnesota Statutes § 204B.19,
subdivision 5 (2002) provides:
No
more than half of the election judges in a precinct may be members of the same
major political party unless the election board" class="docsimg"
of an odd number of election judges, in which case the number of election
judges who are members of the same major political party may be one more than
half the number of election judges in that precinct.
(Footnote added.) Petitioners argue, and we agree,
that this statute prescribes a “duty concerning an election” under section
204B.44(d).
Although section 204B.19, subdivision 5 is silent as to who has the duty to
carry out its mandate, it is clear that this responsibility lies with the
officials who appoint election judges in a particular jurisdiction. Other
duties prescribed by this statute are expressly stated to be those of the
“appointing authority.” Minn. Stat. § 204B.19, subds. 1, 4
(2002). Minnesota Statutes § 204B.21, subdivision 2 (2002) provides that
“[e]lection judges for precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the
governing body of the municipality,” while election judges in precincts located
in unorganized territory are appointed by the county board. This statute
goes on to provide that appointments are “subject to the eligibility
requirements and other qualifications established or authorized under section
204B.19.” Minn. Stat. § 204B.21, subd. 2. If additional
election judges are required after all names listed by the major political
parties have been exhausted, the appointing authority may appoint other judges,
“subject to the same requirements and qualifications.” Id. “The
municipal clerk may assign election judges to fill vacancies as they
occur.” Minn. Stat. § 204B.23 (2002).
Petitioners requested information on election judges in the Cities of St. Paul,
Minneapolis and Rochester, which are all municipalities under the election
laws. Minn. Stat. § 200.02, subd. 9 (2002). In Minneapolis and
Rochester, petitioners’ representatives dealt with the city clerks, not the
county auditors. Respondents O’Connor and Hall state that as county
auditors they have no responsibility for the appointment or supervision of
election judges in Minneapolis and Rochester, respectively. We conclude
that respondents O’Connor and Hall are not proper parties and dismiss the
petition as to them.
Petitioners’ request for information on election judges appointed in St. Paul
was answered by the Ramsey County Elections Division Manager. Respondent
McClung states that she is the supervisor of the Elections Division, which
performs election duties for the City of St. Paul pursuant to contract. See
Minn. Stat. § 383A.62 (2002) (authorizing St. Paul and Ramsey County by
agreement to provide for merger of city and county election offices).
Based on these representations, we conclude that respondent McClung is a proper
party to this action as to the election judges appointed for the City of St.
Paul.
Data Practices Claim.
Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA), all personnel data
that is not designated as “public” is private data. Minn. Stat.
§ 13.43, subds. 2-4 (2002); Navarre v. South Washington County Schs.,
652 N.W.2d 9, 22 (Minn. 2002). Personnel data is that which is
collected because an individual is or was an employee of a government entity,
including a political subdivision. Minn. Stat. § 13.43, subd. 1
(Supp. 2003). Election judges are compensated for their services; the
compensation for those serving in a municipality is fixed by the governing body
of the city or town, and municipalities are responsible for paying their
compensation. Minn. Stat. §§ 204B.31, subd. 1(d); 204B.32,
subd. 1(c) (2002). We conclude that for purposes of the MGDPA, election
judges are employees, as that word is commonly understood, of political
subdivisions. We further conclude that because the political party
membership of election judges is not designated as public under the MGDPA, it
is “private data on individuals” and not accessible to petitioners. Minn.
Stat. §§ 13.02, subd. 12; 13.43, subds. 2-4 (2002)." class="docsimg"
Petitioners argue that the statutory requirement for major political party
balance in the appointment of election judges is intended to address serious
issues of ballot integrity and transparency of the election process.
Petitioners allege that without public scrutiny, enforcement of the party
balance requirement may be difficult.
But petitioners cite no authority, and we have found none, for the proposition
that party membership is public data under the MGDPA. In the absence of
an exception specifically applicable to election judges, and in light of the
clear mandate of the MGDPA that personnel data is private unless otherwise
described as public, we decline to rewrite the statute.
Minnesota has a long tradition of attention to ballot integrity. It is
properly the role of the legislature to debate the propriety of amending the
MGDPA or providing some other remedy to address the issue, such as according an
official like the county auditor supervisory authority to enforce Minn. Stat.
§ 204B.19, subd. 5.