Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/111831350/0320-30038-Newman-v-Ritchie-Order
Timestamp: 2014-07-31 17:34:30
Document Index: 700841657

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 14', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211', '§ 211']

P. 10320-30038 Newman v Ritchie Order0320-30038 Newman v Ritchie OrderRatings: (0)|Views: 61
|Likes: 2Published by crichert30More info:Published by: crichert30 on Nov 01, 2012Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/111831350/0320-30038-Newman-v-Ritchie-Order12/04/2012pdftextoriginal OAH 40-0320-30038STATE OF MINNESOTAOFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGSState Senator Scott Newman and StateSenator Mike Parry,Complainants,vs.Mark Ritchie, Minnesota State Secretaryof State,Respondent.
This matter came on for a probable cause hearing under Minnesota Statutes§ 211B.34, before Administrative Law Judge Bruce H. Johnson on October 12, 2012, toconsider a complaint filed by State Senators Scott Newman and Mike Parry onOctober 1, 2012. The probable cause hearing was conducted by telephone conferencecall. The record closed on October 31, 2012.Frederick W. Knaack, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of State SenatorsScott Newman and Mike Parry
(“Complainants”)
. Kristyn Anderson and JacobCampion, Assistant Attorneys General, appeared on behalf of Secretary of State MarkRitchie (
).Based on the record and all of the proceedings in this matter, including theMemorandum incorporated herein, the Administrative Law Judge finds that there is notprobable cause to believe that the Respondents violated Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.04,211B.06, or 211B.09.
ORDERIT IS ORDERED
: That there is not probable cause to believe that Respondentviolated Minnesota Statutes §§ 211B.04, 211B.06, or 211B.09 as alleged in theComplaint, and this matter is accordingly DISMISSED.Dated: November 1, 2012 __s/Bruce H. Johnson___________ BRUCE H. JOHNSON Administrative Law JudgeDigitally recorded; no transcript prepared
NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL RIGHTS
Minnesota Statutes § 211B.34, subdivision 3, provides that the Complainant hasthe right to seek reconsideration of this decision on the record by the Chief Administrative Law Judge. A petition for reconsideration must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings within two business days after this dismissal.If the Chief Administrative Law Judge determines that the assigned Administrative Law Judge made a clear error of law and grants the petition, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will schedule the complaint for an evidentiary hearing under Minn. Stat. § 211B.35 within five business days after granting the petition.If the Complainant does not seek reconsideration, or if the Chief AdministrativeLaw Judge denies a petition for reconsideration, then this order is the final decision inthis matter under Minn. Stat. § 211B.36, subd. 5, and a party aggrieved by this decisionmay seek judicial review as provided in Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63 to 14.69.
This case involves several communications made by the Respondent in his
official capacity as Minnesota’s Secretary of State
, all pertaining to a question on theballot for the upcoming general election. The ballot question proposes a constitutionalamendment on elections. The communications at issue include material disseminated
on the Respondent’s official website; a letter to a not-for-profit organization written on
the Respondent’
s official stationery; statements the Respondent made at several publicmeetings; a newspaper article; and a written editorial opinion that the Respondentsubmitted to a newspaper. The Complainants allege that all of those communicationsare
“campaign material” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 211B.01, subd. 2, and aretherefore subject to the requirements and prohibitions in other provisions of Minn. Stat.Ch. 211B. Specifically, they allege that that the Respondent used his authority or influence to compel members of his staff to assist him in making the communications inviolation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.09; that the communications contain several falsestatements with respect to the effect of that ballot question in violation of Minn. Stat.§ 211B.06; and that the communications do not contain a disclaimer prescribed byMinn. Stat. § 211B.04.
The purpose of a probable cause hearing is to determine whether there aresufficient facts in the record to believe that violations of law have occurred as alleged inthe complaint.
1 The Office of Administrative Hearings looks to the standards governingprobable cause determinations under Minn. R. Crim. P. 11.03 and by the Minnesota
Minn. Stat. § 211B.34, subd. 2;
Posuta v. Wojchouski , OAH 3-6385-17601-CV (Nov. 6, 2006).
3Supreme Court in
State v. Florence.
2 One must determine whether, given the factsdisclosed in the record, it is fair and reasonable to require the respondent to go tohearing on the merits.
3 A statement of fact must be “capabl
e of being proved true or false.”
4 “[T
test of probable case is whether the evidence worthy of consideration …
brings the charge
against the [defendant] within reasonable probability.” In other words,
a finding of probable cause must be supported by evidence with probative value.
II. Minn. Stat. § 211B.09
Minn. Stat. § 211B.09 provides, in part: An employee or official of the state or of a political subdivision may not use
official authority or influence to compel a person to … take part in political
activity.In order to allege a
prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.09, the Complainantsmust put forward facts that would support finding the Respondent used his authority or influence to “compel”
members of his staff to take part in a political activity. The
Merriam Webster Dictionary defines “compel” to mean “to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly;” or “to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure.”
Here, theComplainants allege that that
employees felt pressured to assist indisseminating the communications at issue. They offered no direct evidence of thatclaim. Rather, they assert that compulsion can necessarily be inferred from the fact thatSecretary Ritchie was their supervisor —
a bald inference unaccompanied by anysupporting evidence. That bare inference is insufficient to raise a fact question or torequire the Respondent to meet this claim at a hearing. Even if it were sufficient, theRespondent presented sworn affidavit testimony that his office staff were not forced toparticipate in or disseminate the communications at issue. The ALJ therefore concludesthat the Complainants have failed to meet their burden of establishing probable casethat a violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.09.
III. Minn. Stat. § 211B.06
Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 prohibits intentional participation
in the preparation, dissemination, or broadcast of … campaign material
t to … the effect of a ballot question, that is designed or tendsto …promote or defeat a ballot question, that is false, and that the person
State v. Florence , 239 N.W.2d 892 (Minn. 1976);
see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1219 (7
ed. 1999)
(defining “probable cause” as “[a] reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or iscommitting a crime.”).
State v. Florence , 239 N.W.2d at 902.
Id . at 896.
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary (2012).
See Anderson v. Otto, et al ., OAH 15-0320-21579-CV (Oct. 1, 2010).
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred readsliveclive304393 liked thiscrichert30 liked thisLoad more
More From This User Entenza Flier 4