Court Opinion

ID: 9688675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:00:21.369396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:41.097772
License: Public Domain

Frank T. Gallagher, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree with the majority that M. S. A. 202.19 and its related statutes regarding nominations for candidates for election by petition are included by reference in § 207.05 and that candidates for the United States senate may be nominated by petition. However, I cannot agree with the majority that the documents purporting to be a petition constituting a certificate of nomination of intervener Ryan were timely filed. It seems to me that the filing time is controlled by L. 1951, c. 167, § 2 (M. S. A. 202.27). That section clearly states:
“Certificates of nomination shall be filed as follows: With the secretary of state, of the names to be placed on the white ballots, on or before the fifth Friday preceding the day of election; * *
This amendment was approved March 26, 1951. As I read the statute, a proper certificate of nomination would have to have been filed on or before Friday, October 1, 1954, which was the fifth Friday preceding the day of the election, which will be November 2, 1954. It is undisputed in the instant case that the purported petition was not filed with the secretary of state until Saturday, October 2, which, under § 202.27, clearly was a day late. It further seems to me that we definitely indicated in State ex rel. Gallagher v. Erickson, 213 *106Minn. 151, 6 N. W. (2d) 13, that § 202.27 controls in connection with the time of filing certificates of nomination.
In view of my position in this matter, I must respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority that the purported petition was timely filed.
While I agree with the majority that the time available for determining fact questions with reference to the regularity of the purported petition was extremely limited in the case at bar because of the urgency for printing the ballots in time for the election, I am compelled to say that I am not satisfied with the regularity of the documents purporting to be a petition constituting a certificate of nomination. It seems to me that petitioners well raised on appeal certain objections to the purported petition, such as, failure to include addresses of signers, whether the signers were bona fide voters, inadequate and improperly administered oaths, et cetera.
I also believe that the legislature could well consider a dead-line limit for filing a certificate of nomination so that there would be sufficient time between the last day for filing such certificate and the time when the ballots must be printed and distributed for election so that this court would not be confronted on appeals such as this with the necessity of making an order from the bench determining the issue in order to prevent delay in the printing of the ballots. It is my opinion that any candidate desirous of filing a certificate of nomination should be required to do so early enough before the date for printing the ballots for distribution so as to allow time for serious consideration and deliberation in the event of an appeal to this court.