Cited by

(recognizing, when interpreting a different statute, that “[t]he dictionary definitions of ‘incumbent’ include ‘[a] person who holds an office’ and ‘[c]urrently holding a specified office’ ” (quoting The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 889 (4th ed. Houghton Mifflin 2000))).

And he asserts that reviewing petition signatures is “a duty directly related to an election.” As the supreme court has stated, section 204B.44 “provides a remedial process only for correction of the ballot and directly related election procedures.”

entially asks us to reclassify the Attorney General data in section 13.65, subdivision 1, as public, even though the Legislature expressly designated the data as “private.” The classification of data is a legislative determination, and we will not second-guess the Legislature’s decision to afford protection to certain data of the Attorney General, a constitutional officer, and “the chief law officer of the state,” Humphrey ex rel.

millions of ballots were prepared” and early voting had begun bef ore the candidate filed the challenge); Clark v. Reddick (Reddick), –96 (Minn. 2010) (declining to hear a challenge to a ballot when the petitioner waited more than 2 months to file the petition, which was 15 days before absentee ballots were to be made available to voters); Clark v. Pawlenty (Pawlenty) , –03 (Minn. 2008) (declining to hear a challenge to a primary ballot when ballots had already been printed and absentee ballots

See, e.g. , Clark v. Pawlenty , , 306 (Minn. 2008) (declining to interpret the word "successor" differently in two different sections of the Minnesota Constitution); Akers v. Akers , 233 Minn. 133 , , 92 (1951) (concluding that the same word used in different subdivisions of a statute must be interpreted to have the same meaning).

" Clark v. Pawlenty , , 299 (Minn. 2008) (quoting Marsh v. Holm , 238 Minn. 25 , , 304 (1952) ).

Clark v. Pawlenty , , 305 (Minn. 2008).

(declining to interpret the word “successor” differently in different sections of the Minnesota Constitution); see also Akers v. Akers, 233 Minn. 133 , (holding that the same word used in different subdivisions of the same statute must be given the same meaning).

See Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428, 433-34 (1992) (recognizing that voting is a fundamental, but not absolute, right and that the interests of states in “assur[ing] that elections are operated equitably and efficiently” requires “a more flexible standard” when reviewing voting regulations); (“[T]he Supreme Court has employed a flexible approach in which the level of scrutiny is determined by the degree to which voters’ rights are adversely affected by the challenged regulation.”).4 3 In his pe

Order at 2-3 (Minn, filed June 28, 2012); -96 (Minn. 2010); Marsh v. Holm, 238 Minn. 25, 28-29

Nevertheless, the Secretary of State is the chief election official for the State, and in that role administers election procedures, issues rules and instructions regarding election laws, and adopts rules for the format and' preparation of the primary election ballot.

At a minimum, the plain language of the statute requires that the claim relate to a duty concerning a specific election.”); (dismissing the Governor from a 204B.44 petition challenging his appointment authority and noting that the statute “provides a remedial process only for correction of the ballot and directly related election procedures”; and because the Governor “is not responsible” for ballot preparation, he cannot i

-98, 303 (Minn.2008) (declining a challenge to a primary ballot filed 24 days before the primary); Marsh v. Holm, 238 Minn. 25, 28-29 , (declining to consider merits of challenge to candidate’s name as it appeared on general election ballot, where candidate used same name on primary elect

See, -300 (Minn.2008) (noting that “[m]ore than 50 years ago we declined to consider the merits of a ballot challenge because ‘the petitioner ha[d] not proceeded with diligence and expedition in asserting his claim’ ” (quoting Marsh v. Holm, 238 Minn. 25, 29 , (second alteration in original)))

Unambiguous words need no interpretation.” (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

(noting propriety of considering legislative history).