2022-02-22 Amundsen - Petition Remains Insufficient

Home Browse Search

February 14, 2022 Page 10 the required number of signatories and whether the signatories meet the applicable eligibility requirements. Even if the Citizens' Petition had not substantially complied with regard to any type size on the form, however, as stated above, it still would not matter because the Court of Appeals has held that, "[n]otwithstanding the form requirements of Minn. R. 8205.1010 and the verification requirement of Minn. R. 8205.1050 (2003), the filing of [an otherwise valid] petition suspend[s] the effective date of the ordinance pending the outcome of a referendum vote." In re Grand Rapids, 2006 WL 1985595, at *2. III. ERROR NO.3: CITY CLERK EWALD ERROUNOUSLY BASED HER FEBUARY 4, 2022 INSUFFICIENCY LETTER ON AN ALLEGED "MERE TECHNICALITY," NOT ON A MANDATORY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT Even if City Clerk Ewald's attempts to find a statutory loophole actually had merit, Minnesota courts, including the Supreme Court, have been extremely reluctant to allow a mere technicality to exclude such a citizens' petition. For example, In re Grand Rapids, 2006 WL 1985595 at *2, the Court of Appeals states, as follows, this principal: Under Minn. R. 8205.1010, subp. 2, petitions must meet nine technical form requirements. Here, while the petition for referendum met all of the r uirements of the statute, it failed to meet five of the nine technical requirements of the rule. This is a significant number of technical deficiencies, but we are reminded that the Minnesota Supreme Court has stated: Courts can take notice of how difficult it is to prepare and to circulate any petition. Frequently such petitions are prepared by laymen, not skilled in the technical aspects of the law. Courts should exercise extreme caution in ruling out, on mere technicalities, such documents f as petitions] which are the result of democracy working at the grassroots level. Bogen v. Sheedy, 304 Minn. 62, 71, 229 N.W.2d 19, 24 (1975). The district court did not err in exercising such caution. (Emphasis added; bracketed information in original). The Supreme Court in Butler v. City of Saint Paul, 936 N.W.2d 478, 481 - 82 (Minn. 2019) affirmed, as follows, that the policy stated by Bogen has not changed: We turn first to Butler's argument that the district court erred in upholding the City's reliance on the SVRS to reject signatures contained in Butler's petition. Butler's petition involves a citizen -led effort to urge residents of Saint Paul to vote to amend the city charter. We have long romoted "the enfranchisement of qualified voters[.]" Bell v. Gannaway, 303 Minn. 346, 227 N.W.2d 797, 802 (1975)