MEMORANDUM

Respondent is a candidate for the Minnesota Supreme Court in the November 8,

2016 election, and is challenging incumbent Supreme Court Justice Natalie Hudson. The
complaint alleges that Respondent violated Minn. Stat. 211B.02 by falsely implying on
campaign material that she has the endorsement of the Minnesota Republican Party in
that judicial election race.
Specifically, the complaint asserts that Respondent submitted information to the
Star Tribune newspaper for a candidate profile of herself that was published in a Voter
Guide section of the newspapers website. In the Endorsements section of her
candidate profile, Respondent claimed she was endorsed by: Christians United in Politics,
Republican Party of MN 2014, and GOPs Judicial Selection Committee 2016.1
Respondent was endorsed by the Republican Party of Minnesota in 2014, but she was
not endorsed by the party in 2016. In addition, the complaint states that there was no
Judicial Selection Committee under the partys then-operative constitution. There was
a judicial election committee, but, according to the complaint, this committee has no
power of endorsement on its own. The complaint maintains that Respondents references
to Republican and GOP and her claim of endorsement by the nonexistent GOP
Judicial Selection Committee were intended to falsely imply that she has the Republican
Party of Minnesotas endorsement.
Standard for Prima Facie Determinations
To establish a prima facie violation of the Fair Campaign Practices Act, the
Complainant must allege sufficient facts to show that a violation of law has occurred.2
The complaining party must submit evidence or allege facts that, if accepted as true,
would be sufficient to prove a violation of Minnesota Statutes, chapter 211A or 211B
(2016).3
For purposes of a prima facie determination, the tribunal must accept the facts that
are alleged in the complaint as true, without independent substantiation, provided that
those facts are not patently false or inherently incredible.4 A complaint must be dismissed
if it does not include evidence or allege facts that, if accepted as true, would be sufficient
to prove a violation of chapter 211A or 211B.5

The complaint notes that the claim of endorsement by the GOP Judicial Selection Committee was
recently removed from Respondents profile on the Star Tribune website.
2
Minn. Stat. 211B.32, subd. 3 (2016).
3
Barry and Spano v. St. Anthony-New Brighton Indep. Sch. Dist. 282, 781 N.W.2d 898, 902 (Minn. Ct. App.
2010).
4
Id.
5
Id.
[81696/1]

Analysis
Minnesota Statutes, section 211B.02 provides as follows:
A person or candidate may not knowingly make, directly or indirectly, a false
claim stating or implying that a candidate or ballot question has the support
or endorsement of a major political party or party unit or of an organization.
A person or candidate may not state in written campaign material that the
candidate or ballot question has the support or endorsement of an individual
without first getting written permission from the individual to do so.
In Niska v. Clayton,6 the Minnesota Court of Appeals upheld a decision of this
tribunal finding that a person violated Minn. Stat. 211B.02 by using the term Republican
Party of Minnesota on multiple documents and on his website to promote candidates
who lacked the partys endorsement.7 Similarly, in Schmitt v. McLaughlin,8 the Minnesota
Supreme Court held that an unendorsed candidates use of the initials DFL violated the
statute because it implied to the average voter that the candidate had the endorsement,
or at the very least the support of, the DFL Party.
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the complaint alleges sufficient facts
regarding Respondents claimed endorsements to support finding a prima facie violation
of Minn. Stat. 211B.02. This allegation will proceed to a probable cause hearing as
indicated in the Order.
J. P. D.

Niska v. Clayton, 2014 WL 902680 (Minn. Ct. App. 2014), review denied (Minn. June 25, 2014).
Niska v. Clayton, No. 68-0325-30147, 2013 WL 1411608 (Minn. Office Admin. Hearings Mar. 12, 2013).
8
275 N.W.2d 587, 591 (Minn. 1979). See also In re Ryan, 303 N.W.2d 462, 465-66 (Minn. 1981) (holding
that placing the terms DFL and LABOR ENDORSED on campaign materials violated the statute).
7

[81696/1]