governed the 2020 general election in Minnesota, including the postelection reviews, should have been asserted earlier.
Petitioners disagree. They assert that they did not “slumber” in their rights, but instead filed their petition within a matter of days after the last postelection review was completed, on November 20, 2020.
Laches is an equitable doctrine applied to “‘prevent one who has not been diligent in asserting a known right from recovering at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay.’” Winters v. Kiffmeyer, 650 N.W.2d 167, 169 (Minn. 2012) (quoting Aronovitch v. Levy, 56 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Minn. 1953)). “The first step in a laches analysis is to determine if petitioner unreasonably delayed asserting a known right.” Monaghen v. Simon, 888 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Minn. 2016). We have insisted that petitioners move expeditiously under section 204B.44 because the time constraints associated with elections demand diligence in asserting known rights. See, e.g., Trooien v. Simon, 918 N.W.2d 560, 561 (Minn. 2018) (“The orderly administration of elections does not wait for convenience.”).
Although petitioners assert that the petition was filed shortly after the postelection reviews were completed, their first two claims focus on events that pre-date those reviews, including the suspension of the witness requirement for absentee ballots in the general election or other events that occurred at early voting locations before November 3, 2020. The suspension of the witness requirement was publicly announced in Minnesota well before voting began on September 18, 2020. It was the subject of two proceedings in Ramsey County District Court, followed by consolidated appeals in this court. LaRose & NAACP-Minn. v. Simon, Nos. 62-CV-20-3149, 62-CV-20-3265, appeals filed, Nos. A20-
3
