Binkley for President 2024 v. Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State

7 N.W.3d 400

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota
• Decided: June 5, 2024
• Docket: A231900
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN SUPREME COURT

A23-1900

Original Jurisdiction Per Curiam Took no part, Hennesy, J. Binkley for President 2024, et al.,

Petitioners,

vs. Filed: June 5, 2024 Office of Appellate Courts Steve Simon, Minnesota Secretary of State,

Respondent.

________________________

Erick G. Kaardal, Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for petitioners.

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Nathan J. Hartshorn, Sarah Doktori, Assistant Attorneys General, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for respondent. ________________________

SYLLABUS

Minnesota Statutes section 207A.13, subdivision 2(a) (2022), does not violate the

Electors Clause of the United States Constitution because statutes that govern the

presidential nomination primary do not fall within the scope of the Electors Clause.

Petition denied.

1 OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Ryan Binkley asked the Republican Party of Minnesota to include his

name on its ballot for the 2024 presidential nomination primary. When the Chair of the

Republican Party of Minnesota notified respondent Steve Simon, the Minnesota Secretary

of State, of the candidates for its ballot in the 2024 presidential nomination primary,

Binkley was not included as a candidate. On December 13, 2023, petitioners Binkley and

his campaign committee, Binkley for President 2024, filed a petition with our court under

Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44 (2022), asking that we direct the Secretary of State to

include Binkley’s name as a candidate on the presidential nomination primary ballot of the

Republican Party of Minnesota. Petitioners assert that the procedures established by

Minnesota Statutes section 207A.13, subdivision 2(a) (2022), which authorize a major

political party to determine the candidates that will appear on its ballot for the presidential

nomination primary, violate the Electors Clause of the United States Constitution.

We directed the parties to file briefs addressing petitioners’ claim. We held oral

argument on January 11, 2024. In an order filed on January 11, 2024, we denied the

petition. This opinion explains the reasons for our decision.

FACTS

Before turning to the facts, some background on Minnesota’s electoral processes for

presidential nominees and candidates will be helpful to understanding the legal issues

presented by this dispute.

2 In general, a primary election determines which candidates will advance to the

general-election ballot, including as a nominee of a major political party. See Minn. Stat.

§ 204D.10, subd. 1 (2022) (“The candidate for nomination of a major political party for a

partisan office on the state partisan primary ballot who receives the highest number of votes

shall be the nominee of that political party for that office.”). Most candidates seeking the

nomination of a major party for a public office file an affidavit of candidacy to appear on

a primary election ballot. See Minn. Stat. § 204B.03 (2022) (“Candidates of a major

political party for any partisan office except presidential elector . . . shall apply for a place

on the primary ballot by filing an affidavit of candidacy . . . .”). Thus, the major political

parties do not control access to the ballot in these primary elections.

State elections for presidential nominees and candidates proceed in a different

fashion. In 2016, the Minnesota Legislature enacted chapter 207A, establishing a

presidential nomination primary. See Act of May 22, 2016, ch. 162, §§ 9–13, 2016 Minn.

Laws 605, 609–12. This primary is limited to participation by “a major political party that

selects delegates . . . to send to a national convention.” Minn. Stat. § 207A.11(d) (2022).

“A major political party that does not participate in a national convention is not eligible to

participate in the presidential nomination primary.”1 Id.

1 For minor political parties and independents, the presidential candidates and presidential electors are nominated by petition. Minn. Stat. § 204B.07, subd. 2 (2022) (stating that “presidential electors or alternates” for candidates other than those nominated by major political parties “are nominated by petition” and that this petition states “the names of the candidates for president and vice-president”).

3 Each participating political party has a presidential primary ballot. Minn. Stat.

§ 207A.13, subd. 1(b) (2022). The party “must determine which candidates are to be

placed on the presidential nomination primary ballot for that party.” Id., subd. 2(a). The

candidate names must be given to the Secretary of State by the party chair “no later than

63 days” before the primary election. Id. “Once submitted, changes must not be made to

the candidates that will appear on the ballot.” Id. The party chair can ask the Secretary of

State to include a “blank line printed below the other choices on the ballot so that a voter

may write in the name of a person who is not listed on the ballot.” Id., subd. 1(c) (2022).

No less than 7 days before the primary, the party chair must submit “the names of write-in

candidates, if any, to be counted for that party.” Id., subd. 2(b) (2022).

Once the results of the primary election are declared, “the secretary of state must

notify the chair of each party of the results.” Minn. Stat. § 207A.12(c) (2022). Unlike in

other primary elections, the winner of the presidential nomination primary does not

necessarily appear on the general election ballot. Instead, the party chair informs the

Secretary of State of their party’s presidential candidate for the general election ballot. See

Minn. Stat. §§ 208.03–.04 (2022).

With this overview in mind, we turn to the facts, which are undisputed. The 2024

Minnesota presidential nomination primary occurred on March 5, 2024. Binkley, a Texas

resident, is seeking the Republican nomination for United States President in 2024.

Binkley wanted to be listed on the 2024 presidential nomination primary ballot of the

Republican Party of Minnesota. Binkley asked the Republican Party of Minnesota to

4 include his name on its presidential nomination primary ballot. Binkley was told that the

party was using the following criteria to appear on that ballot:

1. met the threshold to appear in the first [Republican National Committee] debate in Milwaukee or 2. previously held or currently held at least one of these offices: President or Vice President of the United States, United States Senator or Congressman, Governor in any state, or mayor of a United States City with a population of more than 250,000.

Binkley does not meet either criterion. The Republican Party of Minnesota offered to have

any write-in votes for Binkley counted, but the record does not show how Binkley

responded to this offer.

The Republican Party of Minnesota gave the Secretary of State a list of candidates

for the 2024 presidential nomination primary. Binkley was not on this list.

ANALYSIS

Petitioners contend that the procedures established by Minnesota Statutes

section 207A.13, subdivision 2(a), which authorize a major political party to determine the

candidates that will appear on its ballot for the presidential nomination primary, violate the

Electors Clause of the United States Constitution. According to petitioners, the Electors

Clause prohibits state-based favoritism on ballots through the exclusion of qualified

candidates. The Secretary of State, in response, asserts that petitioners’ claim fails as a

matter of law.

Statutes are presumed constitutional, and “the party that asserts otherwise bears a

heavy burden to overcome that presumption.” Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Comm’r of

Revenue, 880 N.W.2d 844, 848 (Minn. 2016). A party filing a petition under Minnesota

5 Statutes section 204B.44 also bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that there is an error

that requires correction. See Paquin v. Mack, 788 N.W.2d 899, 904 (Minn. 2010)

(explaining that the petitioner asserting that a ballot error or omission exists bears the

burden of showing that a correction is required).

The Electors Clause in the United States Constitution provides:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. The vote by the electors, in turn, is used to determine who

becomes president. See U.S. Const. amend. XII.

To prove a violation of the Electors Clause, petitioners must first establish that the

Electors Clause applies to Minnesota Statutes section 207A.13, subdivision 2(a).

Petitioners assert that because the presidential election process in Minnesota begins with

the presidential nominating primary, the Electors Clause applies to section 207A.13. The

Secretary of State, on the other hand, argues that the presidential nomination primary is not

subject to the Electors Clause. Because Minnesota does not use the presidential nomination

primary to appoint presidential electors, the Secretary of State contends that Minnesota

Statutes section 207A.13 (2022) does not implicate the Electors Clause. We agree with the

Secretary of State.

We begin with the text of the Electors Clause itself, which does not mention

presidential nomination primaries. See U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2. Instead, it grants states

the power to “appoint” presidential electors, in the “[m]anner” determined by the

6 legislature of the state. Id.; see also McPherson, 146 U.S. at 35 (stating that the Electors

Clause gives “plenary power to the state legislatures in the matter of the appointment of

electors”).

There is also an absence of case law on the issue raised here. We have not addressed

the Electors Clause. The United States Supreme Court has only a few decisions addressing

the Electors Clause. These cases, however, involve challenges to the method a state

legislature adopted for choosing electors, McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892)

(holding a Michigan statute providing for the election of presidential electors by

congressional district did not violate the Electors Clause), or challenges to a state law that

applies to electors, Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U.S. 578, 581, 585–86 (2020) (holding a

Washington statute imposing a fine on an elector who did not vote in accordance with their

pledge to support the nominee of their party did not violate the Electors Clause). We have

not found any Electors Clause decision that involves a presidential nomination primary.

Against this backdrop, we examine Minnesota’s election statutes to determine

whether the process used for appointing electors—which does implicate the Electors

Clause—involves the presidential nomination primary. In Minnesota, presidential electors

are appointed based on the results of the popular vote for president at the general election.

See Minn. Stat. § 208.02 (2022) (“Presidential electors and alternates [are] chosen at the

state general election held in the year preceding the expiration of the term of the president

of the United States.”); Minn. Stat. § 208.04, subd. 1 (stating that “a vote cast for the party

candidates for president and vice president shall be deemed a vote for that party’s electors

and alternates as filed with the secretary of state”); Minn. Stat. § 208.05 (2022) (requiring

7 the State Canvassing Board to “canvass the returns . . . for presidential electors and

alternates . . . and declare the person or persons receiving the highest number of votes for

each office duly elected”). The winner of the presidential nomination primary does not

automatically become that party’s candidate for president in Minnesota’s general election

because that party nominates its candidate at a national convention. See Minn. Stat.

§ 207A.11(d) (stating that the presidential nomination primary only applies to “major

political part[ies] that select[] delegates at the presidential nomination primary to send to a

national convention”). Before the general election, the party chair “certif[ies] to the

secretary of state the names of the persons nominated as presidential electors, the names of

persons nominated as alternate presidential electors, and the names of the party candidates

for president and vice president,” Minn. Stat. § 208.03, and those candidates for president

and vice president are placed on the general election ballot, Minn. Stat. § 208.04, subd. 1.

Minnesota’s presidential nomination primary simply does not determine the appointment

of presidential electors in Minnesota.

Petitioners’ claim is also inconsistent with our characterization of the presidential

nomination primary. “[A]lthough the Secretary of State and other election officials

administer the mechanics of the” presidential nomination primary election, “this is an

internal party election to serve internal party purposes.” Growe v. Simon, 997 N.W.2d 81,

82 (Minn. 2023) (order). The presidential nomination primary is “a process that allows

political parties to obtain voter input in advance of a nomination decision made at a

national convention.” De La Fuente v. Simon, 940 N.W.2d 477, 492 (Minn. 2020).

8 We conclude that under Minnesota law, the presidential nomination primary is not

part of the process that Minnesota uses to appoint presidential electors. Because the

Electors Clause addresses the appointment of presidential electors, the statutes that govern

the presidential nomination primary do not fall within the scope of the clause. As a result,

even if the Electors Clause places limits on the manner a state uses to appoint presidential

electors, those limits do not apply to the statutes that govern the presidential nomination

primary. We therefore hold that petitioners’ claim that section 207A.13, subdivision 2(a)

violates the Electors Clause fails as a matter of law.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we deny the petition.

HENNESY, J., not having been a member of this court at the time of submission,

took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.