Court Opinion

ID: 9698167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:43:54.510042+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:39.029862
License: Public Domain

OTIS, Justice
(dissenting).
I agree that the prosecution of appellant for violation of Minn.St. 210A.02, under the circumstances of this case, would be a harsh and unjust sanction which the court should not and does not find appropriate. However, this is not a criminal case. The burden of. proof is far less onerous, and the necessity for criminal intent is totally absent. Consequently, the rule of strict construction of penal statutes has no application. An affirmance of the trial court’s decision annulling the election of Meland cannot, under any conditions, be used as evidence of criminal guilt in this or any other proceeding.
To reverse the trial court, in my opinion, ignores a flagrant violation of the letter and spirit of the Fair Campaign Practices Act and condones a fraud on the electorate. Section 210A.02 prohibits a candidate from knowingly making a false claim implying indirectly that he has the support of a political party when he does not in fact have such support.
The literature in question said:
“Read what others say about Keith Me-land—
“ ‘. . .we are proud of you . ..’
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey
“ ‘ • • • your leadership is badly needed . . . ’
Vice President Walter F. Mondale”
(Emphasis supplied.)
The trial court found as a fact that with respect to the November 8, 1977, election these representations were false and misleading. Those findings are not in dispute. The use of the words “say” and “is” in the present tense was blatantly false since neither Senator Humphrey nor Vice President Mondale, at that election, supported Me-land.
The decisive issue is whether the trial court’s finding that the candidate’s literature implied support of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party is based on adequate evidence. Senator Humphrey and Vice President Mondale were, at the time of the election, the two top leaders of the Minnesota DFL party in prominence and in influence. To ignore the implications of the word “we” in Senator Humphrey’s statement, “we are proud of you,” particularly in juxtaposition to Vice President Mondale’s statement, in my opinion, totally ignores the realities of politics. It would be obvious to the casual reader that the late senator was not speaking just for himself but for the party. No other reasonable inference from the use of the word “we” can be drawn.
All that was necessary to bring these misrepresentations within the purview of § 210A.02 was to show that Meland falsely implied indirectly that the candidate had the support of a political party. To hold *406that this is not such a case is to frustrate the legislative determination that such practices mislead the public and permit close elections such as this one to be won by fraud.
I would affirm the trial court.