Court Opinion

ID: 9686966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:12:24.538227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:23.349273
License: Public Domain

KELLY, Justice
(dissenting in part and concurring in part).
I agree that there is no question of the legislature’s final authority in this matter: it is an absolute grant of constitutional power which may not be delegated to or shared with the courts. It follows as pointed out by the majority opinion that we have no jurisdiction to issue a final and binding decision in this matter and any opinion rendered could only be advisory in nature.
As I interpret our constitution there is no duty imposed on this court to render any type of decision in this matter whether it be advisory or otherwise. I recognize that his court has as a matter of comity in some instances adhered to legislative enactments where it seems appropriate to do so. In this case it does not seem appropriate. Our constitution (Minn.Const. art. IV, § 6) provides:
“[That each house of the legislature] * * shall be the judge of the * * * eligibility of its own members.”
Then, to aid the legislature to carry out its judicial role, the constitution authorizes that body to:
“[P]rescribe by law the manner for taking evidence in cases of contested seats in either house.”
This language does not expressly or impliedly permit the legislature to obligate this court to make decisions in election contests where each house of the legislature is given the power of determining the eligibility of its members. It only goes so far as to permit the legislature to prescribe the manner for “taking evidence.” Thus, the judiciary should not be required by the legislature to do more than take evidence. This court might be called upon to review the process involved in the taking of evidence.
An additional reason for my thinking that it is inappropriate for this court to render any type of decision in any manner affirming or reversing the court below is *866that we would be intruding on the powers and duties of another branch of the government — the legislature.
I also have some misgivings about the constitutional propriety of the trial court making findings of fact and conclusions of law but because it is a one-man court, it seems less intrusive. That court perhaps should have done no more than take the evidence, state the issues, and summarize the testimony.
The majority opinion would to some degree modify the conclusion of the trial court which I not only think is inappropriate but is not what I would do if I opined that we had a constitutional duty to review the action of that court.
For the foregoing reasons, I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice PETERSON.