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.6 individuals were residents of Saint Paul. Our review of the record confirms the district court's assessment and convinces us that Butler did not carry his burden. We came to a similar conclusion in Paquin. 788 N.W.2d 899. In Paquin, the county auditor rejected signatures of signers who listed a post office box as their residence, rather than a street address, because a post office box “provides no information about the location of the box renter's residence.” Id. at 904. We concluded that the section 204B.44 petitioner failed to provide “any other evidence from ... signers of his nominating petition who listed a post office box ... attesting that [they] intended the city or township and county listed on the petition to convey their residence address.” Id. We therefore held that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of showing that the county auditor erred “in rejecting the signatures of those who listed only a post office box in the residence address column” on the nominating petition. Id. (noting that the petitioner failed to show that the signers’ voting records would establish that the signers lived in the legislative district). Here, Butler similarly failed to submit admissible evidence, such as signed affidavits, showing that the signers were, in fact, residents of Saint Paul. Accordingly, he has not met his burden to show that the City erred in rejecting the petition signatures. In urging us to reach the contrary conclusion, Butler does not point to evidence showing that the data in the SVRS, as to the signatures in dispute, was inaccurate in any way. Rather, he contends that his voter-circulated petition —because it included signatures and places of residence— was signed in compliance with the statutory requirements and is therefore presumptively valid. He concedes that we have not recognized this presumption. Instead, he relies on a decision from the Montana Supreme Court, which applied such a presumption in the context of a voter-initiative petition. Montanans for Justice v. State ex rel. McGrath, 334 Mont. 237, 146 P.3d 759, 775 (2006). The Montana Supreme Court also held, however, that once evidence is introduced to rebut the presumption of validity, “it is incumbent upon ... the party endorsing the validity of the signatures ... to come forward with evidence to rebut or counter the damaging evidence.” Id. Here, even if we were inclined to adopt the Montana approach, the result would be the same. Assuming Butler's voter-circulated petition was presumptively valid, the City offered evidence to rebut that validity by showing that 147 signers were registered to vote at addresses outside of Saint Paul. Butler, as the district court found, produced no evidence to rebut that showing, and thus, he failed to meet his burden. Accordingly, we hold that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment for the City. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals. Affirmed. All Citations 936 N.W.2d 478 Footnotes 1 The Elections Office also rejected signatures in cases where: (1) the signer did not provide all of the required information; (2) the signer was not eligible to vote in Saint Paul; (3) the signer's information was illegible; and (4) the same person signed more than one line on the petition. These rejection reasons are not before us in this appeal. 2 Butler also alleged in his petition that the City erred by sending him a notice that failed to comply with Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 3. The district court found that the petition failed to state a claim that the City committed an error, omission, or wrongful act in issuing the notice of insufficiency to Butler. Butler did not pursue this claim on appeal. 3 In its motion for summary judgment, the City stipulated that Butler provided 5,957 valid signatures.