Court: District Court, D. Minnesota; October 15, 2014; Federal District Court
The Court addressed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment filed by Defendant Mark Ritchie, Minnesota Secretary of State, while Plaintiffs sought to deny or delay this motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). The Court partially granted Ritchie's motion and denied the Plaintiffs' motion, except for moot aspects. The case originated just before the November 2, 2010 general election, with Plaintiffs aiming to prevent Defendants from enforcing a law prohibiting voters from wearing 'Please I.D. Me' buttons and other political insignia at polling places. Central to the dispute is Minn. Stat. 211B.11, subd. 1, which prohibits displaying campaign material or political insignia within polling places or within 100 feet of them on election day. Following the filing of the Complaint, the Court denied a request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction just before the election. Subsequently, Ritchie's office circulated a memo, termed the Election Day Policy, outlining that election judges have the authority to determine what constitutes 'political' material, which includes items associated with political parties, candidates, ballot questions, and any issue-oriented material aimed at influencing voters.
State election law prohibits the display of political materials in polling places, requiring individuals to cover or remove such materials. If a person refuses, they can still vote, but their refusal will be documented for authorities. Voters' names and descriptions of their political items must be recorded in an incident log. Election judges and official challengers are also banned from displaying political materials; refusal to comply may result in removal from the polling place.
Following a general election, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint asserting violations of their First Amendment rights, Due Process, and Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a claim that Minnesota Statute 211B.11, subdivision 1 is unconstitutional. The Defendants, including Secretary Ritchie and election officials, moved to dismiss the complaint. In April 2011, the court granted these motions, ruling that the First Amendment claims failed both facially and as applied, and rejecting the Due Process and Equal Protection claims. The Plaintiffs appealed, and in March 2013, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Equal Protection claim and the facial challenge to the First Amendment, but reversed the as-applied challenge. The Plaintiffs' petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was denied in December 2013, and after a stay was lifted, Secretary Ritchie filed a motion.
Ritchie’s motion presents two issues: seeking dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity and lack of standing, or alternatively, requesting summary judgment on the merits of the Plaintiffs' as-applied First Amendment challenge. Ritchie contends he is not a proper defendant, arguing the Amended Complaint lacks sufficient factual content for standing and does not seek the appropriate form of relief under the Eleventh Amendment. This argument is deemed unpersuasive.
Ritchie previously argued for Eleventh Amendment immunity in a December 2010 motion to dismiss, which was not addressed by the Court in its April 2011 decision due to the Amended Complaint's failure to state a claim. The Court's stance aligned with Eighth Circuit precedent, which indicates that the issue of sovereign immunity need not be resolved if the complaint is dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). On appeal, Ritchie renewed his immunity argument and introduced a standing challenge, but the Eighth Circuit did not address these points, instead reversing and remanding the case for proper analysis of the First Amendment claim through summary judgment standards. The Eighth Circuit's order to proceed with the case implies that Ritchie's arguments lacked merit, as a valid Eleventh Amendment defense would bar continuation of the litigation. The Eleventh Amendment protects states and state officials from being sued in federal court, and this immunity serves as a jurisdictional barrier that does not need to be raised at the trial level. Therefore, the Court denies the Rule 12 portion of Ritchie's motion, as the Eighth Circuit's disposition implicitly rejected both his standing and immunity arguments, which this Court is bound to accept.
Ritchie contends that the remaining claim—a First Amendment challenge to Minn. Stat. 211B.11, subd. 1 and the Election Day Policy—fails under the Rule 56 summary judgment standard. The Eighth Circuit previously affirmed that both the statute and the Policy are viewpoint neutral, applying to all political material without bias. However, it found that the lower court had improperly relied on external matters when concluding the reasonable application of the statute and Policy to the Plaintiffs. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for proper analysis under Rule 56, allowing for an adequate factual record.
For summary judgment to be granted under Rule 56, Ritchie must prove there is no genuine dispute over material facts and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. He must substantiate his claims by referencing specific record materials or demonstrating that the nonmovant cannot provide admissible evidence to contest the claims. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ritchie must establish that excluding the Plaintiffs' buttons and apparel from the polling place is reasonable in light of the state’s interests in maintaining order at polling locations, protecting voters from confusion and undue influence, and preserving election integrity. Thus, the core issue is whether Ritchie can identify undisputed facts that support the rationale for excluding the Plaintiffs’ items in relation to these state interests.
Ritchie has demonstrated that the 'Please I.D. Me' buttons were intended to mislead voters into believing that photo identification is required to vote in Minnesota. Evidence from Election Integrity Watch's website indicates a plan for the 2010 election that encourages voters to wear the buttons and show ID when voting, despite Minnesota not mandating ID. This strategy aims to influence voter behavior and deter potential impersonation attempts. Polls suggest over 80% of Minnesotans favor ID requirements, yet legislative efforts to implement such measures have stalled. The Plaintiffs, including Minnesota Voters Alliance, do not contest the authenticity or implications of this evidence. The undisputed facts indicate that banning these buttons at polling places supports the state's interests in preventing voter confusion and maintaining election integrity. The Plaintiffs argue against Ritchie's motion by citing a remand from the Eighth Circuit that emphasizes the need for discovery. However, the court's instructions do not compel deferring the motion until after full discovery, allowing for a summary judgment evaluation without requiring complete evidence collection under Rule 26.
Ritchie filed a motion for summary judgment, and the Plaintiffs were adequately notified and had ample opportunity to present relevant material. However, they did not provide any evidence to counter Ritchie's arguments regarding the 'Please I.D. Me' buttons. Instead, the Plaintiffs sought to delay the ruling on the motion, claiming that further discovery would yield rebuttal evidence to counter Ritchie's assertion of no genuine issues of fact. Under Rule 56(d), to obtain such a continuance, the opposing party must file an affidavit demonstrating how postponement would assist in their case. The Plaintiffs' affidavit, which requested discovery on several issues related to election procedures and enforcement, was deemed insufficient to justify Rule 56(d) relief. The requested discovery focused on the Secretary's actions and policies regarding election day conduct but was not relevant to Ritchie's motion, which centered on the intention behind the 'Please I.D. Me' buttons and their connection to misleading voters about voter identification laws. Ultimately, the material facts indicate that Election Integrity Watch aimed to deceive voters regarding ID requirements, linking their buttons to a broader campaign to alter election laws.
Plaintiffs did not contest certain facts, rendering their discovery requests irrelevant. Ritchie demonstrated that prohibiting Plaintiffs from wearing "Please I.D. Me" buttons at polls serves legitimate state interests, such as preventing voter confusion and ensuring order, leading to the granting of Ritchie's summary judgment motion regarding this aspect while denying Plaintiffs' Rule 56(d) motion. Conversely, Ritchie's attempt to prohibit the North Star Tea Party Patriots' apparel was unsuccessful. He failed to provide sufficient undisputed facts linking the apparel to the state's interests, relying only on documentation related to the Congressional Tea Party Caucus without establishing its relevance. Consequently, Ritchie's motion concerning this apparel was denied without prejudice. The Plaintiffs' related Rule 56(d) motion was rendered moot. The court ordered that Ritchie's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part, while Plaintiffs' motion was denied in part and deemed moot in part. Additionally, the Plaintiffs had submitted relevant materials at the case's outset, but their response to the court's inquiry regarding these materials was nonresponsive. Notably, in the 2012 general election, Minnesota voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment requiring photo identification for voting.
