A petition may be filed to correct certain “errors, omissions, or wrongful acts which have occurred or are about to occur,” including “any wrongful act, omission, or error of any election judge … or any other individual charged with any duty concerning an election.” Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(a)(4). The petitioners have the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that relief under section 204B.44 is required. Weiler v. Ritchie, 788 N.W.2d 879, 882–83 (Minn. 2010).
Petitioners assert three claims: (1) under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I of the Minnesota Constitution, (2) under Article III of the Minnesota Constitution, the Separation of Powers Clause; and (3) under the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Minnesota Constitutions, U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Minn. Const., art. I, § 7. Counts I and II rest on challenges to consent decrees entered by the district court that suspended the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots for the 2020 general election. See LaRose v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20-3149, Order (Ramsey Cty. Dist. Ct. filed Aug. 3, 2020); NAACP-Minn. v. Simon, No. 62-CV-20-3625, Order (Ramsey Cty. Dist. Ct. filed Aug. 3, 2020); see also Minn. Stat. § 203B.07, subd. 3 (2018) (explaining the process for completing the ballot in the presence of another individual). Count III challenges the processes used in some counties for conducting the postelection review. See Minn. Stat. § 206.89 (2018).
Respondents—the Secretary of State and the members of the State Canvassing Board—contend that petitioners’ claims are barred by laches because they could have sued or asserted these claims earlier in the election process. Similarly, the Minnesota DFL argues that petitioners’ delay is inexcusable because their challenges to the procedures that
2
