8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
1/22
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
RAMSEY COUNTY SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case Type: Civil
Minnesota Voters Alliance, Minnesota
Majority, Minnesota House of RepresentativeSteve Drazkowski, Minnesota House of
Representative Ernie Leidiger, Minnesota
House of Representative Mary Franson andHouse of Representative Jim Newberger,
Petitioners,
v.
State of Minnesota and Secretary of State MarkRitchie, in his official capacity, or his
successor,
Respondents.
Court File No. 62-CV-13-7718
Judge John H. Guthmann
RESPONDENT SECRETARY OF
STATES MEMORANDUM OF
LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
PETITIONERS QUO
WARRANTO PETITION
INTRODUCTION
On September 26, 2013, Respondent Secretary of State Mark Ritchie (hereinafter the
Secretary) announced the creation of a new tool on the Office of Secretary of States website
that permits Minnesotans to submit their voter registration applications directly to the Office.
Petitioners have brought this action seeking to prevent Minnesota voters from accessing this
method of delivery. Petitioners also seek to nullify the registrations of eligible voters who have
already used the system to register to vote.
As an initial matter, the State of Minnesota is not a proper party. Petitioners also lack
standing to bring the instant action, so the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition. Even
if this Court has jurisdiction, the Petition fails because the challenged action is within the
Secretarys authority under Minnesota law, which permits the Secretary to accept voter
registration applications that are submitted electronically. Indeed, Minnesota has long accepted
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
2/22
2
electronic voter registrations. Finally, the remedies sought by Petitioners greatly exceed those
permitted by a writ of quo warranto. The Court should deny Petitioners Petition for Writ of Quo
Warranto.
FACTS
Minnesotans have a constitutionally protected right to vote. The Minnesota Constitution
provides that [e]very person 18 years of age or more who has been a citizen of the United States
for three months and who has resided in the precinct for 30 days next preceding an election shall
be entitled to vote in that precinct. Minn. Const. art. VII, 1; see also id.(listing persons not
entitled to vote, such as a person who has been convicted of treason or felony, unless restored to
civil rights). See alsoU.S. Const. amends. XV, XIX, XXVI; Minn. Stat. 201.014 ([A]n
individual who meets the following requirements at the time of an election is eligible to
vote . . . (a) be 18 years of age or older; (b) be a citizen of the United States; and (c) maintain
residence in Minnesota for 20 days immediately preceding the election.).
Registration is not required by either the State or federal Constitution. Id. Minnesota
statutes, however, impose registration as a procedural prerequisite for exercising the franchise.
Minn. Stat. 201.018, subd. 2 (An eligible voter must register in a manner specified by
section 201.054, in order to vote in any primary, special primary, general, school district, or
special election held in the county.).
A. Voter Registration in Minnesota.Prospective Minnesota voters register to vote by complying with the application
requirements set forth in Minnesota law. Minn. Stat. 201.018; 201.054, subd. 1; 201.061,
subds. 1 and 3. The voter registration application is required to include information such as the
voters name, address, and date of birth. Minn. Stat. 201.071, subd. 1. Typically, the
application will include either a current and valid Minnesota drivers license number or state
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
3/22
3
identification number, or, if a voter has neither, the last four digits of the voters Social Security
number. Id. The application also must include a certification of voter eligibility and the
voters signature. Id.
Under state law, a registration application meeting the above requirements cannot be
deemed deficient. Minn. Stat. 201.071, subd. 3. Furthermore, [n]o eligible voter may be
prevented from voting unless the voters registration application is deficient or the voter is duly
and successfully challenged in accordance with section 201.195 or 204C.12. Id. These
referenced provisions permit challenges solely based on a voters residence or eligibility. See
Minn. Stat. 201.195, subd. 1; 204C.12, subd. 1.
State law provides Minnesota voters with various mechanisms for completing and
submitting registration applications to election officials. Prospective voters, as well as current
voters who need to change their registration information, may complete and submit an
application. (See Minnesota Voter Registration Application, attached to Affidavit of Gary Poser
(hereinafter Poser Aff.) as Ex. A.)
Voters have traditionally completed applications either by (1) completing the application
at a state or county elections office; (2) mailing the application to an elections office; or
(3) filling out the application and giving it to a third-party agency, organization, or individual. In
the latter case, the third-party agency, organization, or individual then submits the application to
the relevant elections office. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. 201.061, subd. 1 (A state or local agency
or an individual that accepts completed voter registration applications from a voter must submit
the completed applications to the secretary of state or the appropriate county auditor within ten
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
4/22
4
days after the applications are dated by the voter.).1 Indeed, every biennium, political
associations and non-partisan organizations, such as the League of Women Voters, distribute
thousands of registration applications to prospective Minnesota voters. (Poser Aff 11(a).) The
private organizations then collect the completed applications and submit them to state and local
election officials for entry into the statewide voter registration system. (Id.)
When paper applications are submitted to the Secretarys Office, they are sent to the
appropriate county for data entry and processing. The voters information is then manually
entered by the county into the Statewide Voter Registration System (SVRS) database. (Poser
Aff. 8; Minn. Stat. 201.021 - .022.)
In addition to paper applications, the Secretarys office has accepted electronically-
submitted voter registration applications since 2004. Individuals applying for a drivers license
through the Minnesota Department of Public Safety are permitted to elect to register at the same
time, and that information is submitted to the Secretarys Office electronically. Minn. Stat.
201.022, subd. 1(1), (4) (provid[ing] for electronic transfer of completed voter registration
applications from the Department of Public Safety to the secretary of state or the county
auditor); see also 2004 Minn. Laws ch. 293, art. 1, 1 (enacting these provisions of
section 201.022); Minn. Stat. 201.161 (Applicants for drivers licenses or identification cards
must be asked if they want to register to vote at the same time and that information must be
transmitted at least weekly by electronic means to the secretary of state.).
1See alsoMinn. Stat. 201.162 (requiring all state agencies or their agents to provide voter
registration services for employees and the public and stating that nonpartisan voter
registration assistance is part of the job of all appropriate agency employees); 201.054,subd. 3 (regulating compensation for individuals engaged in the solicitation, collection, or
acceptance of voter registration application from voters for submission to the secretary of state,
county auditor, or other local election official).
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
5/22
5
When applying through the Department of Public Safety, individuals registering to vote
are not required to complete or sign a separate voter registration application. Id. Rather, they
may simply check a box and provide a signature in a dedicated portion of their drivers license
application. Id. The Department of Public Safety then transmits the necessary information
electronically to election officials. Id.
B. The Online Voter Registration System.
On September 26, 2013, the Secretarys Office announced the creation of an online
registration tool on the Offices website. (Poser Aff. 19; see also Affidavit of Mark Ritchie
(hereinafter Ritchie Aff.) 3.) The web tool offers current and prospective Minnesota voters
the opportunity to print a paper registration form or to use an online version. (SeePoser Aff.
Ex. B (online registration application).) The questions on each form are substantively identical;
however, to submit a registration electronically, a voter must provide both (1) a valid email
address and (2) a Minnesota-issued drivers license, Minnesota-issued identification card
number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number. (See id.). The applicant must
check a box verifying the accuracy of the information he or she is submitting under penalty of
law and sign the application by typing his or her name into the signature field on the application,
which indicates that the typed name is the voters legally binding signature. (Id.; see also Minn.
Stat. 325L.07)
If an online applicant fails to provide an email address, an identification number, or any
of the information required by law, the Web tool rejects the application and notifies the applicant
that he or she must provide all required information before submitting it. (Poser Aff. 16(a)-
(b).) Once the application has been completed, the software immediately encrypts and saves the
applicants data. (Id. at 16(c).) The electronic Web service then uses a firewall to retrieve,
transmit, and process the data in a secure fashion. (Id.)
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
6/22
6
Once the application data is behind the firewall, it undergoes an automated security check
that includes a comparison to records in (1) the SVRS database, (2) the databases maintained by
the Driver and Vehicle Services (DVS) division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety,
or (3) the database maintained by the federal Social Security Administration. (Poser Aff. 18.)
Any application that fails to find a match in the drivers license, state identification card, and
Social Security processes detailed above is automatically rejected. (Id. at 18(d).) The
applicant is sent an e-mail message informing him or her that the application cannot be processed
and that he or she may resubmit the application either online or on paper. (Id.) If accepted, the
applicants data is treated like any other electronic voter registration data received by the Office
and is queued or loaded for the appropriate county for processing. (Id.at 18(a)-(c).)
C. Verification and Use of Electronically-Stored Voter Registration
Information.
Regardless of the method by which a voters information arrives at the county elections
office, it is stored in electronic format in the SVRS database. Minn. Stat. 201.021-.022. The
SVRS provides a means for the necessary sharing of registration information between
appropriate state and county officials to occur electronically. Minn. Stat. 201.022. The system
is also used to coordinate with information contained in other state and federal databases to
ensure consistency. Id. Paper applications, whether delivered by mail, in person, or by a third
party, are manually entered by local election officials in the county where the voter resides.
(Poser Aff. 8.) Information that the Office of Secretary of State receives electronically,
whether from the Department of Public Safety or the Offices website, is placed into the
appropriate countys electronic pending-applications queue for processing in the SVRS. (Poser
Aff. 10, 18(a)-(c).)
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
7/22
7
Once the registration application data has been entered into the SVRS, it is subjected to
ongoing verification processes. The registration data in the SVRS is continually compared with
data in other government databases to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the registration
data. (Poser Aff. 24-25.) These verification procedures ferret out typographical errors and
other similar mistakes. (Poser Aff. 26(a)); Minn. Stat. 201.1615 (procedure verif[ies] the
accuracy of the information provided on applications for voter registrations). See also Minn.
Stat. 204C.12 (setting forth challenge process, under which voters whose SVRS records have
been flagged as challenged are required to provide additional information under oath before
being allowed to vote). Finally, the procedures serve a law-enforcement function, allowing for
the prosecution of persons who have falsely certified on election documents that, for example,
they are not serving felony sentences. (Poser Aff. 26(b)); Minn. Stat. 201.157 (providing that
Secretary shall notify county auditors upon learning that persons under felony sentences appear
to have illegally registered or voted).)
D. Online Registration Does Not Change Voter Registration Procedures,
Except To Make Registration More Accessible.
The verification processes performed by the Secretary of State and county and local
election officials do not change depending on the manner in which voters provide their
registration information to election officials. On the contrary, whether submitted in paper or
electronic form, each voters registration information is processed or entered into the SVRS, and
undergoes the various verification processes. Electronic submissions typically have a lower
error rate than hand-written paper applications, which must be read and entered manually by
clerks. (Poser Aff. 20.) During the verification processes noted above, this lower error rate
yields significantly fewer false positives or missed matchesthat is, registrations that
appear to contain invalid information or fail to correlate with records in other government
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
8/22
8
databases as the result of simple typographical errors, illegible handwriting, or other human
mistakes. (Id. at 28.)
Similar electronic voter registration efforts in other states have yielded an increase in
registration, as well as improved the reliability of the information contained in voter registration
databases. (Poser Aff. 21.) In addition, permitting electronic submissions increases the
efficacy and reduces the cost of the registration system, both for Minnesota voters and for state
and county election officials. (Id. at 22.) Since the websites launch, at least 2,225 voters
statewide have chosen to submit online applications. (Id. at 23.) Of these applications, at
least 625 are new registrations. (Id.) The remainder are either changes or updates to information
on current voters, or are currently unprocessed. (Id.)
ARGUMENT
I. QUO WARRANTO IS AN EXTRAORDINARY AND LIMITED REMEDY.
The writ of quo warranto is an ancient common law writ that has enjoyed a unique and
varied history in the State of Minnesota. Rice v. Connolly, 488 N.W.2d 241, 243 (Minn. 1992).
The Minnesota Supreme Court has described the modern use of the writ as a judicial proceeding
to correct the usurpation, misuser, or nonuser of a public office or corporate franchise. State
ex rel. Danielson v. Village of Mound, 48 N.W.2d 855, 863 (Minn. 1951).2 The remedy of quo
warranto applies only to an ongoing usurpation, misuser, or nonuser of power; it is not available
to challenge government conduct that is pending or has been completed. See, e.g., id. at 864;
State ex rel. Lommen v. Gravlin, 295 N.W. 654, 655 (Minn. 1941).
2 The Minnesota Supreme Court has defined usurpation as the unauthorized arbitrary
assumption and exercise of power, misuser as a use unlawfully in excess of, or varying from,
ones right, and nonuser as a failure to use or exercise any right or privilege. Danielson, 48
N.W.2d at 863.
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
9/22
9
The writ of quo warranto is an extraordinary remedy that rests in the sound discretion of
the court. Rice, 488 N.W.2d at 244; Danielson, 48 N.W.2d at 861. See also State ex rel.
Burnquist v. Village of North Pole, 6 N.W.2d 458, 460 (Minn. 1942) (recognizing the writ of quo
warranto is an extraordinary legal remedy). The writ is an equitable remedy that is rarely
invoked by the courts. Rice, 488 N.W.2d at 244. Indeed, the Supreme Court has exercised its
discretion in favor of issuing the writ infrequently and with considerable caution. Id.3
II. THE PETITION IS NOT JUSTICIABLE.
The Petition is not justiciable because Petitioners lack standing to seek quo warranto
relief, and any individualized claim for relief is not ripe.
Standing is a fundamental jurisdictional requirement. Annandale Advocate v. City of
Annandale, 435 N.W.2d 24, 27 (Minn. 1989). In order to establish standing, Petitioners must
show that their claimed injury is personal, particularized, concrete, and otherwise judicially
cognizable. Conant v. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, L.L.P., 603 N.W.2d 143, 150 (Minn.
App. 1999). Petitioners standing must be based on an injury that is distinct from that of the
general public. Channel 10, Inc. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 709, 215 N.W.2d 814, 820 (Minn.
1974). In other words, the claimed injury must be one that is special or peculiar and different
from damage or injury sustained by the general public. Id.; see also Conant, 603 N.W.2d at
3 Although Petitioners lack of standing is dispositive, the State of Minnesota is not a proper
party to this Petition. See Travis v. Reno, 163 F.3d 1000, 1007 (7th Cir. 1998) ([T]he proper
defendant is the person whose actions cause injury, and that does not include the overarchinggovernment entity such as a United States or State of Minnesota); Quinones v. City of Evanston,
Illinois, 58 F.3d 275, 277 (7th Cir. 1995) (same); Marks v. United States Congress, 285 Fed.
Appx. 762, 763 (D.C. Cir. Jul 25, 2008) (same). Indeed, seeking injunctive relief against the
State of Minnesota begs the question of which of the many actors comprising state governmentis to be held accountable. Finn v. Rendell, 990 A.2d 100, 106 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).
Petitioners have identified a specific actorthe Secretary of Stateand the State of Minnesota
should be dismissed as an improper party.
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
10/22
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
11/22
11
Petitioners Drazkowski, Leidiger, Franson and Newbergers claim to legislator standing
likewise fails. Legislator standing exists only where the legislator can demonstrate a concrete,
personal, particularized injury that differs from the interests of his or her house. Conant, 603
N.W.2d at 150. Injury that is institutionalnamely, the diminution of legislative powerdoes
not provide the personal, particularized harm that supports legislative standing. Id. (citing with
approval authority stating it is untenable to argue legislative standing exists based on
deprivation of legislators right to participate and vote on legislation in a manner defined by the
Constitution). While vote nullification is a sufficiently concrete and personal injury to confer
standing on a legislator, vote nullification has been construed to stand at most, for the
proposition that legislators whose votes would have been sufficient to defeat (or enact) a specific
legislative act have standing to sue if that legislative action goes into effect (or does not go into
effect) on the ground that their votes have been completely nullified. Rukavina v. Pawlenty,
684 N.W.2d 525, 532 (Minn. App. 2004) (quoting Conant, 603 N.W.2d at 150). Petitioners
claim, based only upon an argument that the Legislature, rather than the Secretary, should
address online voting, does not raise the issue of vote nullification. As a result, it is insufficient
to establish legislator standing.
Petitioners Representatives Drazkowski, Leidiger, Franson and Newberger also cannot
establish a justiciable controversy based upon their status as potential future candidates. To
establish the necessary injury-in-fact for standing, a litigant must demonstrate a harm that is both
concrete and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Whitmore v. Arkansas,
495 U.S. 149, 155 (1990) (quotation and citation omitted); Twin Ports Convalescent, Inc. v.
Minnesota State Bd. of Health, 257 N.W.2d 343, 346 (Minn. 1977). In a quo warranto petition,
the requisite justiciability does not exist if the litigant seeks declarations upon remote
contingencies or as to matters where the plaintiffs interest is merely contingent upon the
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
12/22
12
happening of some event in the future. State ex rel. Sviggum v. Hanson, 732 N.W.2d 312, 322
(Minn. App. 2007) (quotation omitted). Rather, the litigant must have sustained or be in
immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury in order to establish standing. Rukavina, 684
N.W.2d at 531.
Moreover, in order for this Court to exercise jurisdiction, Petitioners must show that there
is a ripe controversy. McCaughtry v. City of Red Wing, 831 N.W.2d 518, 523 (Minn. 2013)
(recognizing that ripeness must be established before a Minnesota court has jurisdiction to issue
a declaratory judgment regarding constitutionality). A claim is not ripe if it is dependent on
events that may or may not occur in the future. Minn. Pub. Utils. Commn v. F.C.C., 483 F.3d
570, 582 (8th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that [a] claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon
contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all)
(quoting Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (finding claim regarding sanctions
was not ripe since we have no idea whether or when such a sanction will be ordered)).
Petitioners assert that they expect[ ] to run for re-election (Pet. 5-7), will face
election contests in seeking reelection (Pet. 43), and may be harmed by a hypothetical future
election decided by non-registered persons (Pet. 44). However, the next election will not
occur until, at the earliest, the August 2014 state primary. Even assuming Petitioners will run for
re-election, and someone will run against them, any number of intervening events could occur
before the 2014 election cycle. Indeed, the Legislature might enact legislation regarding
electronic registration that will address Petitioners concerns. Because Petitioners claims as
potential candidates depend on contingent future events that may never occur, their claims are
not justiciable.
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
13/22
13
II. SECRETARY RITCHIE IS AUTHORIZED TO PERMIT AND FACILITATE ONLINE
REGISTRATION.
The Secretary of State has the authority and discretion to permit Minnesota voters to
submit their voter registration applications to his Office by electronic means. Petitioners
selective reading of Minnesotas voter registration statutes is inconsistent with the States
election law and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA). Petitioners also ignore the
fact that Minnesota Secretaries of State have lawfully accepted registration applications
submitted either electronically or by third parties for many years.
A. Secretary Ritchie Has Broad Constitutional And Statutory Authority AndDiscretion Over Elections In Minnesota.
The Secretary of State is a constitutional office in the executive branch. Minn. Const.
art. V. The Secretary is the chief election official in the state. Clark v. Pawlenty, 755 N.W.2d
293, 299 (Minn. 2008). As such, the Secretary is charged with numerous responsibilities to
facilitate and protect Minnesotans right to vote. For example, the Minnesota Constitution
specifically charges the Secretary with the responsibility to oversee election returns. Minn.
Const. art. VII, 8. The Secretary also has been granted broad statutory authority and discretion
over elections. Minnesota Statutes provide the Secretary the authority to sponsor or participate
in nonpartisan activities to promote voter participation in Minnesota elections and in efforts to
increase voter registration and voter turnout. Minn. Stat. 204B.27, subd. 6.
B. UETA Authorizes the Secretary to Accept Registrations in Electronic
Form.
State law also gives the Secretary the discretion to determine whether and to what extent
his office will accept electronic records and signatures, including voter registrations. The
Minnesota Legislature passed UETA in 2000 to facilitate and promote commerce and
governmental transactions by validating and authorizing the use of electronic records and
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
14/22
14
electronic signatures. Minn. Stat. 325L.06. UETA defines electronic record to mean a
record created, generated, sent, communicated, received, or stored by electronic means.
Minn. Stat. 325L.02(g) (emphasis added).
At its core, UETA provides that:
(a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solelybecause it is in electronic form.
(b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because anelectronic record was used in its formation.
(c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic record satisfies thelaw.
(d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature satisfies the law.Minn. Stat. 325L.07.
The Legislature plainly intended UETA to apply to State government and its
subdivisions. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. 325L.02(i) (defining governmental agency to include
State executive, judicial, and legislative authorities and agencies), 325L.02(p) (defining
transaction broadly to include an action or set of actions . . . relating to the conduct of . . .
governmental affairs). UETA authorizes each governmental agency of this state to
determine whether, and the extent to which, it will create and retain electronic records and
convert written records to electronic records. Minn. Stat. 325L.17. UETA also gives the
creating agency the discretion to determine the manner and format for accepting electronic
records. Minn. Stat. 325L.18.
UETA directs the means by which agencies are to reconcile its provisions with existing
legal requirements. First, UETA explicitly exempts certain categories of documents, none of
which are applicable here. See Minn. Stat. 325L.03. In addition, UETA provides that where a
law other than [UETA] requires a record . . . to be sent, communicated, or transmitted by a
specific method, the restrictions in the other law apply. Minn. Stat. 325L.08(b) (emphasis
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
15/22
15
added). However, any requirement under law other than this chapter to send, communicate, or
transmit a record by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or regular United States mail may be varied
by agreement to the extent permitted by the other law. Id.at (c)(2).
C. The Secretary Has Statutory Authority to Accept Electronic Voter
Registration Applications.
1. UETA applies because voter registration applications are notsubject to exclusive or mandatory delivery methods.
Minnesotas voter registration laws provide a number of different means by which voter
registrations may be completed and delivered to election officials. Because there is no
mandatory or exclusive means for delivery, the Secretary has the authority and discretion under
UETA to permit electronic delivery.
Minnesota Statutes section 201.061, subdivision 1, provides:
At any time except during the 20 days immediately preceding any regularly
scheduled election, an eligible voter or any individual who will be an eligiblevoter at the time of the next election mayregister to vote in the precinct in whichthe voter maintains residence by completing a voter registration application as
described in section 201.071, subdivision 1, and submitting it in person or by mailto the county auditor of that county or to the Secretary of States Office.
Minn. Stat. 201.061, subd. 1 (emphasis added). Based on this provision, Petitioners attempt to
avoid the provisions of UETA by arguing that the in person or by mail language above is
mandatory and exclusive. (Pet. 22.)
Petitioners argument ignores the plain language of section 201.061. A plain-language
reading reveals that the in person or by mail to the county auditor of that county or to the
Secretary of States Office language is permissive rather than mandatory. See Minn. Stat.
645.44, subds. 15 & 15a (when interpreting Minnesota statutes, [m]ay is permissive and
[m]ust is mandatory). For this reason alone, Minn. Stat. 201.061 cannot be read to
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
16/22
16
preclude electronic delivery of voter registration applications, which is otherwise authorized by
UETA.
In addition, Chapter 201 as a whole demonstrates that the in person or by mail
language does not constitute a mandatory requirement. Minn. Stat. 645.16 (Every law shall
be construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.); 645.17(1), (2) (indicating that
courts are to presume that the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd, impossible of
execution, or unreasonable, and that the legislature intends the entire statute to be effective and
certain).
Multiple means of submitting registration applications other than in person or by mail to
the county auditor of that county or to the Secretary of States Office are permissible under
Minnesota election law. For example, voter registration applications are frequently submitted
through third parties, such as state and local government agencies, political campaigns and
parties, and private entities such as the League of Women Voters. Minn. Stat. 201.061, subd. 1
(A state or local agency or an individual that accepts completed voter registration applications
from a voter must submit the completed applications to the secretary of state or the appropriate
county auditor within ten calendar days after the applications are dated by the voter.). See also,
e.g., Minn. Stat. 201.054, subd. 3 (further regulating private third-party submission); 201.162
(further regulating public third-party submission). Every election cycle, thousands of voters
submit registration applications by giving them to third parties for delivery. (Poser Aff. 11(b).)
Minnesota also has accepted registration data submitted to the Secretarys Office
electronically for nearly a decade. (Poser Aff. 10 (citing Minn. Stat. 201.022, .161).) These
registrations are based on information obtained in connection with drivers license and/or state
identification applications and are delivered to the Secretary electronically. See Minn. Stat.
201.161. In the past nine years, more than 500,000 Minnesotans have used the electronic
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
17/22
17
motor voter process to register to vote or to update their voter registrations. (Poser Aff.
10(a).)
Finally, [n]o voter registration application is deficient and [n]o eligible voter may be
prevented from voting based simply upon the method of delivery. See Minn. Stat. 201.071,
subd. 3 (providing itemized list of specific requirements for a valid voter registration application,
but omitting any mention of method of delivery). The fact that Minnesota law considers an
otherwise valid registration effective regardless of the method of delivery further demonstrates
that the in person or by mail language of section 201.061 is neither mandatory nor exclusive.
These longstanding features of Minnesotas voter registration system demonstrate that
Minn. Stat. 201.061 does not carry the meaning that Petitioners assert.5 On the contrary, by its
plain language, and when read in the context of election laws as a whole, section 201.061,
subd. 1, does not contain an exclusive or mandatory list of the means by which voters may
submit their registration applications to election officials. Because section 201.061, subd. 1,
contains no require[ment that] a record . . . be sent, communicated, or transmitted by a specified
method, see Minn. Stat. 325L.08(b), (b)(ii), the Secretary possesses the discretion under
UETA to accept voter registrations delivered electronically.6
5Indeed, Minnesota law explicitly prohibits the interpretation advanced by Petitioners. SeePart
III-B,infra.
6Petitioners point to two election law provisions that make explicit reference to electronic use
connected to ballots and election resultsone permitting electronic transmission, Minn. Stat.
203B.225, and the other prohibiting it, Minn. Stat. 206.845. (Pet. at 30-31.) Contrary to
Petitioners assertion, these provisions stand only for the proposition that when the legislaturehas intended to pass mandates related to electronic recordswhether in support or againstit
has done so. No such mandates exist here. Since Minnesota law does not mandate exclusively
non-electronic delivery of voter registrations, UETA authorizes the Secretary to permit online
registration.
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
18/22
18
2. Pursuant to UETA, any requirement of delivery by U.S. mailcontained in other law may be altered by agreement.
In defining delivery by mail, Minn. Stat. 201.061 explains that mail registration is
defined as a voter registration application delivered to the secretary of state, county auditor, or
municipal clerk by the United States Postal Service or a commercial carrier.7 Id. Even if the
in person or by mail phrase could be deemed a requirement, UETA permits any requirement
under law other than this chapter to send, communicate, or transmit a record by first-class mail,
postage prepaid, or regular United States to be changed by agreement to allow an electronic
form of delivery. Minn. Stat. 325L.08(c)(2).
By creating a website, the Secretary has exercised his statutorily-provided discretion to
promote voter participation and increase voter registration, Minn. Stat. 204B.27, subd. 6, and
agreed to accept registration applications submitted using the prescribed electronic means.8
Minn. Stat. 325L.17 (providing that the government agency shall have discretion regarding
how to implement UETA). The website provides voters the option of printing a paper form or
using an electronic means of submission. Thus, voters choosing to use the website to submit
7 Contrary to Petitioners assertions, an internet provider does fit within the definition of a
commercial carrier. (Pet. 23.) The internet is accessible only because of commercial
services such as internet service providers (ISP) and internet networks. These services aretypically run by private companies, including Comcast, AT&T, Sprint, etc., that make profits by
transferring electronic data on behalf of customers in exchange for a fee. Thus, just as FedEx is
a commercial entity that carries boxes on the Interstate Highway System, internet providers quiteliterally are commercial entities that carry customer data on the internet.
8 The Secretary is explicitly authorized to create and maintain a website. See Minn. Stat.
10.60, subd. 2 (stating the purpose of a public website is to facilitate access to public services
and information related to the responsibilities or function of the state agency); subds. 3(b) &4(d) (specifically referring to the election-related Web site maintained by the Office of the
Secretary of State).
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
19/22
19
their materials are likewise agreeing to electronic delivery. This satisfies the requirements of
Minn. Stat. 325L.08(c)(2).9
In sum, Minnesota law gives the Secretary the authority to accept voter registration
applications that are submitted electronically. Because the Secretarys authority is based on the
Minnesota Constitution and on statutes duly enacted by the Legislature, no separation of powers
issues arise. For these reasons, the Court should not enjoin the Secretary of State from
continuing online voter registration.
III. PETITIONERS CANNOT OBTAIN THE RELIEF THEY SEEK.
Petitioners ask this Court to nullify the registrations of individuals who used the
Secretarys website to deliver their registration applications electronically. Such relief is neither
appropriate nor permissible in a quo warranto proceeding. In addition, Petitioners request
would be unlawful under Minnesota Statutes and the Minnesota Constitution.
A. Quo Warranto Does Not Provide For Invalidation Of Previously-SubmittedVoter Registration Applications.
Quo warranto does not provide for the relief Petitioners request, because the writ does not
apply to government conduct that is pending or has been completed. State ex rel. Danielson v.
Village of Mound, 48 N.W.2d 855, 864 (Minn. 1951) ([u]ntil an actual usurpation has occurred,
the remedy of quo warranto has no application); State ex rel. Lommen v. Gravlin, 295 N.W.
654, 655 (Minn. 1941) ([T]he writ of quo warranto is not allowable as preventative of, or
remedy for, official misconduct and cannot be employed to test the legality of official action of
public . . . officers.).
9The fact that voter registrations cannot be invalidated based upon the method of delivery, see
Minn. Stat. 201.071, subd. 3 and Part III-B, infra, also supports the application of UETAs
provision that any requirement to transmit voter registrations by mail can be varied by agreement
between the voter and the Secretary.
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
20/22
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
21/22
21
number or Minnesota state identification number, the last four digits of the voters Social
Security Number, if the voter has been issued a Social Security Number, prior registration, if
any, and signature. Id. Because election officials are not permitted to prevent voting based on
the method by which the registration application was delivered, the relief Petitioners seek is
prohibited by law.
Second, section 201.071, subdivision 3, permits election officials to prohibit a voter from
voting where a successful challenge has been brought pursuant to section 201.195 or
section 204C.12. Id. Both of these provisions relate to the manner in which a registered voter
may challenge another voters right to vote. Challenges under both provisions are limited,
however, to objections as to eligibility and/or residence. Minn. Stat. 201.195, subd. 1;
204C.12, subds. 1-3. Neither statute permits a challenge based on the method by which the voter
submitted his or her registration application to election officials.10
Finally, invalidating an eligible voters vote based on his or her reliance on a specific
delivery method offered by the Secretary of State could violate the fundamental constitutional
right to vote. See, e.g., Malone v. Tison, 282 S.E.2d 84, 89 (Ga. 1981) (declining to invalidate
registrations which, due to registrar error, were submitted in locations not compliant with
mandatory registration laws and considering that such action may be unconstitutional); Huffaker
v. Edington, 163 P. 793, 794-95 (Id. 1917) (refusing to deprive citizens of their right to vote
based on registration irregularities caused when voters relied on election officials and
irregularities were caused by election officials who failed to comply with regulations directed at
the officials). The Court should not grant such unconstitutional relief. See, e.g., Minn. Stat.
10Petitioners make no argument that the Secretarys online registration page enables ineligible
persons to vote.
8/13/2019 Online voter registration in Minnesota
22/22
645.17(3) (Minnesota courts presume that the legislature does not intend to violate the
Constitution of the United States or of this state[.]).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Secretary of State Mark Ritchie respectfully requests the
Court to deny Petitioners Petition for Writ of Quo Warranto.
Dated: December 4, 2013. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALState of Minnesota
/s/ Alethea M. HuyserALETHEA M. HUYSER
Assistant Attorney GeneralAtty. Reg. No. 0389270
KRISTYN ANDERSONAssistant Attorney General
Atty. Reg. No. 0267752
NATHAN J. HARTSHORN
Assistant Attorney GeneralAtty. Reg. No. 0320602
445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1100
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2128
(651) 757-1243 (Voice)(651) 296-1410 (TTY)
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS
SECRETARY OF STATE MARK RITCHIE
AND STATE OF MINNESOTA