Court Opinion

ID: 9738814
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:03:34.134231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:08.643248
License: Public Domain

Knutson, Chief Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the result.
Inasmuch as I was the author of the court’s opinion in Youngdale v. Eastvold, 232 Minn. 134, 44 N. W. (2d) 459, which stated among other things that (232 Minn. 139, 44 N. W. [2d] 462) “our courts have no jurisdiction over the election of representatives to congress,” I feel that some explanation of my present views are in order. That statement was taken largely from Williams v. Maas, 198 Minn. 516, 270 N. W. 586, and State ex rel. 25 Voters v. Selvig, 170 Minn. 406, 212 N. W. 604. Read literally, it is too broad a statement.
U. S. Const, art. I, § 4, which provides that the “times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall *445be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof,” clearly grants to the states the power to prescribe the manner of electing Senators and Representatives to Congress. This right, however, is circumscribed by art. I, § 5, which reads in part: “Each house shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members.” By legislation, Minnesota, as well as every other state of the Union, has provided the machinery for electing members of Congress. In view of that fact, it is not accurate to say that we have no jurisdiction over elections. It is more proper to say that the states have been given the authority to prescribe all steps necessary to complete the elective process, subject to the overriding power of Congress to determine who has been properly elected and to refuse to seat one who is determined not to have been properly elected. Within the scope of the elective process, our legislature could have provided for a recount of the votes under supervision of our courts when the original tabulation was questioned by one of the candidates. If it had done so as part of the elective process, as many of the other states have done, we do not doubt that Congress would accept the final tally of the vote after a recount as well as it would accept the original tally without a recount.
In the Youngdale case we said (23.2 Minn. 139, 44 N. W. [2d] 462):
“The authority of courts to entertain election contests is purely statutory. Absent statutory authorization, the courts are without jurisdiction to determine election contests. * * * If the statutes do not authorize the courts to entertain election contests for the office here involved on the ground and for the reasons alleged in contestant’s petition, the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.”
What we really held in the Youngdale case may be found in the following part of our opinion (232 Minn. 144, 44 N. W. [2d] 464):
“We come therefore to the conclusion that there are no statutory provisions authorizing our courts to entertain contests involving the nomination or election to the office of representative in congress for mere errors in counting the ballots, and that the petition before us is insufficient to bring the contest within the scope of § 208.01. Consequently, the court is without jurisdiction, * *
*446It is correct to say that our courts have no jurisdiction over an election contest involving such offices under our laws as they now stand. This does not mean that the legislature, if it saw fit, could not confer upon the court the right to supervise an election contest or recount of the ballots in order to determine who was legally elected. As long as the recount is part of the election process, it would be just as much within the constitutional power granted to the state as any other step in the elective process. The difficulty here is that our legislature has not included a recount of the votes, with or without supervision of the courts, as part of the election process with respect to a Representative in Congress.
In State ex rel. 25 Voters v. Selvig, 170 Minn. 406, 212 N. W. 604, we held that the House of Representatives had exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether a person elected as a Representative in Congress was disqualified from becoming a member of that body. In Williams v. Maas, 198 Minn. 516, 270 N. W. 586, we went one step further and held that the state had no power to conduct a recount of the votes. Some of the statements made in these cases were followed in the Youngdale case, and those statements are too broad if taken out of context with the facts involved in those cases. I think the correct rule is that the state does have the power to provide for a recount of the votes as part of the elective process but that final determination of who is elected, or whether a candidate receiving the most votes is disqualified from holding office, lies with Congress.