Source: http://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/0410/ora041955-1027.htm
Timestamp: 2018-12-14 16:45:23
Document Index: 699944177

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 204', '§ 13', '§ 204', '§ 214', '§ 204', '§ 13', '§ 204']

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. A04-1955, Supreme Court Order, October 28, 2004.
No more than half of the election judges in a precinct may be members of the same major political party unless the election board[1] consists 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.
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).[2]
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. [3]
There are two shifts of election judges for each of St. Paul’s 104 precincts. A chart appended to the October 20, 2004 affidavit of the Ramsey County Elections Manager indicates that one precinct was out of compliance with Minn. Stat. § 214B.19, subd. 5. Our in camera review of the materials submitted shows that as of October 15, 2004, one shift in each of eight precincts had a party-membership imbalance of one judge.[4]
[1] The election judges appointed to serve in a precinct constitute the precinct’s election board. Minn. Stat. § 204B.20 (2002).
[2] We have entertained this data practices claim because it is directly related to a claim over which we have original jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we wish to emphasize that data practices claims should be commenced in the district court. It is the district court that has original jurisdiction to provide injunctive or other relief for violations or proposed violations of the MGDPA. Minn. Stat. § 13.08 (2002).
[3] Although it serves a slightly different purpose, we note that Minn. Stat. § 204C.07, subd. 1 (2002), allows major political parties to appoint challengers to be present at the polling place for each precinct.
[4] The affected precincts are: Ward 1, Precinct 12; Ward 2, Precinct 6; Ward 3, Precinct 2; Ward 3, Precinct 13; Ward 4, Precinct 7; Ward 4, Precinct 13; Ward 5, Precinct 3; and Ward 6, Precinct 1.