Minnesota law at times refers to them as “candidates,” see, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 204B.03 (2020), the Electors are not candidates for public office as that term is commonly understood. Whether they ultimately assume the office of elector depends entirely on the outcome of the state popular vote for president. Id. § 208.04 subdiv. 1 (“[A] vote cast for the party candidates for president and vice president shall be deemed a vote for that party’s electors.”). They are not presented to and chosen by the voting public for their office, but instead automatically assume that office based on the public’s selection of entirely different individuals.
78 F.3d at 1063 (Kelly, J., dissenting).[1]
Plaintiffs contend that the Michigan Election Code and relevant Minnesota law are similar. (See ECF No. 49 at Pg ID 3076-78.) Even if the Court were to
- ↑ In addition, at least one Circuit Court, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, has distinguished Carson’s holding, noting:
Our conclusion departs from the recent decision of an Eighth Circuit panel which, over a dissent, concluded that candidates for the position of presidential elector had standing under Bond to challenge a Minnesota state-court consent decree that effectively extended the receipt deadline for mailed ballots. … The Carson court appears to have cited language from Bond without considering the context—specifically, the Tenth Amendment and the reserved police powers—in which the U.S. Supreme Court employed that language. There is no precedent for expanding Bond beyond this context, and the Carson court cited none.
Bognet, 2020 WL 6686120, at *8 n.6.
29
