Carson v. Simon, No. 20-3139 (8th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Minnesota law dictates that election officials only count ballots received by election day. The Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans Education Fund filed suit against the Secretary, alleging that Minnesota's statutory deadline was unconstitutional. The Secretary and the Alliance entered into a consent decree that essentially made the statutorily-mandated absentee ballot receipt deadline inoperative. After the Minnesota state court confirmed the decree, the Secretary directed election officials to count absentee ballots received up to a week after election day, notwithstanding Minnesota law.
Plaintiffs, both Minnesota registered voters and also certified nominees of the Republican Party to be presidential electors, filed suit alleging that the consent decree and the state court's order confirming it violate the United States Constitution. The district court denied plaintiffs' requested injunction, concluding that they lack standing to bring their claims.
The Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction and remanded to the district court to enter an injunction requiring the Secretary and those under his direction to identify, segregate, and otherwise maintain and preserve all absentee ballots received after the deadlines set forth in Minn. Stat. 203B.08, subd. 3.
After determining that plaintiffs have Article III and prudential standing to bring their claims, the court considered plaintiffs' constitutional challenge to evaluate the propriety of preliminary injunctive relief rather than remanding for the district court to decide the merits in the first instance. The court held that the Secretary's instructions to count mail-in ballots received up to seven days after Election Day stand in direct contradiction to Minnesota election law governing presidential elections, and plaintiffs have strongly shown likely success on the merits since the Secretary's actions are likely to be declared invalid under the Electors Clause of Article II of the United States Constitution. The court stated that only the Minnesota Legislature, and not the Secretary, has plenary authority to establish the manner of conducting the presidential election in Minnesota. The court also held that the Secretary's plan to count mail-in ballots received after the deadline established by the Minnesota Legislature will inflict irreparable harm to plaintiffs. Furthermore, the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in favor of the issuance of an injunction. Finally, the court held that the injunction does not violate the Purcell principle.
Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Shepherd, Kelly and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Elections. Plaintiffs, Minnesota registered voters and certified nominees of the Republican Party to be presidential electors, had standing to sue the Secretary of State and challenge an extension of the deadline for receipt of absentee ballots; it is likely that the extension of the deadline violates Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution in that the Minnesota Secretary of State lacks authority to extend the deadline for receipt of ballots without legislative authorization; as a result, plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of their claims, and the other injunction factors, such as the public interest and the possibility of irreparable harm, also weigh in their favor and support the issuance of an injunction; such an injunction does not violate the Purcell principle. The matter is remanded to the United States District Court with direction to enter an injunction requiring the Secretary of State and those under his direction to identify, segregate and otherwise maintain and preserve all absentee ballots received after the deadlines set forth in Minn. Stat. Section 203B.08, subd. 3. Judge Kelly, dissenting. [ October 28, 2020 ]
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.