Butler v City of Saint Paul (1) - Laserfiche WebLink

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Butler v. City of Saint Paul, 936 N.W.2d 478 (2019) © 2022 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5 To summarize Butler's position, he asserts that while the City may use the SVRS to verify whether the petition signers are registered to vote, it cannot use the SVRS to determine whether the signers are residents of Saint Paul. Doing so, Butler argues, was an error for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 204B.44. We disagree. Butler is effectively arguing that the City should ignore information in the SVRS when that information lists a registered address different from the address listed on the petition. Specifically, if we adopted Butler's argument, we would require the City to ignore affirmative evidence in the SVRS that the signer was not an eligible voter in Saint Paul. [3] [4]But the statute requires that city election officials verify whether the petition is signed by the required number of voters. Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 3; see also Minn. R. 8205.1050, subp. 2(B) (2017) (explaining the verification process for petitions and the City's obligation to verify whether the petition “has been signed by the required number of signatories and whether the signatories meet the applicable eligibility requirements”).6 And state law provides that only registered voters are eligible to sign a petition like the one that Butler submitted. Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 1. Because state law provides that only registered voters are eligible to sign petitions, id., and because the SVRS is the official record of registered voters in Minnesota, Minn. Stat. § 201.081, subd. 1(a), it was not an error for the City *484 to look to the SVRS in determining whether Butler's petition met the statutory requirements. The fact that eligibility to vote is tied to both registration and residency reinforces this conclusion. Under state law, eligible voters “may vote only in the precinct in which the voter[s] maintain[ ] residence.” Minn. Stat. § 201.016, subd. 1 (2018). To cast a ballot in an election, “eligible voter[s] must register,” Minn. Stat. § 201.018, subd. 2 (2018), and in their voter-registration application, voters must list their current address. Minn. Stat. § 201.071, subd. 1 (2018). This address is recorded in the SVRS, Minn. Stat. § 201.121, subd. 1(a) (2018), which is then updated when voters apply for an address change or for a new state identification card. See Minn. Stat. § 201.13, subd. 3. Given that a voter's registration is tied to the voter's current residence, it does not arise to the level of an error, omission, or wrongful act, see Minn. Stat. § 204B.44, for the City to reject a signature of a voter whose current residence, as listed in the SVRS, is located outside of Saint Paul.7 Based on our analysis, we hold that the City did not err for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 by relying on the SVRS to determine eligibility and rejecting signatures of those who were registered to vote at an address outside of Saint Paul. B. [5]We turn next to Butler's argument that he raised an issue for trial as to the qualifications of a sufficient number of signers. Butler argues that the district court erred in denying his section 204B.44 petition because genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment. Specifically, he contends that discrepancies between a residential address in Saint Paul on the petition, as compared to data in the SVRS showing that the signer is registered to vote at an address outside of Saint Paul, present material factual disputes. We are not persuaded. [6]Butler brought his challenge to the City's action under Minn. Stat. § 204B.44. Butler therefore has the burden to prove that the City made an error that requires correction. Paquin v. Mack, 788 N.W.2d 899, 904 (Minn. 2010) (explaining that the petitioner bears the burden of showing election officials committed an error, omission, or wrongful act). The record shows that Butler did not carry his burden as the section 204B.44 petitioner. See id. Rather, it demonstrates that the City diligently compared each signature in his petition to the SVRS—“the official record of registered voters.” Minn. Stat. § 201.081, subd. 1(a). In its initial review of Butler's petition, the City had 10 days to examine the 786-page petition to verify whether it included the required number of valid signatures, and it did so by relying on the SVRS. After Butler filed his section 204B.44(a)(4) petition, the City reviewed his voter-circulated petition four more times to re-examine the rejected signatures, rescind the rejections for some signatures, and provide reasons supporting the invalidation of each rejected signature. Even after these four reviews, the district court found that the petition fell 74 signatures short of the minimum statutory requirement. And the district court determined that Butler “produced no evidence” to demonstrate that *485 any of the signatures were wrongly rejected by the City because those