3-0320-17444-CV

STATE OF MINNESOTA

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

 

 

Vincent D. Maloney,

                                           Complainant,

vs.

 

Jeffrey Anderson,

                                           Respondent.

 

ORDER FINDING

NO PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

 

On August 10, 2006, Vincent D. Maloney filed a Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging Jeffrey Anderson, a non-incumbent candidate for State Representative District 27B, violated Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.03 and 211B.06 by using the term “re-elect” on his campaign material.      

The Chief Administrative Law Judge assigned this matter to the undersigned Administrative Law Judge on August 10, 2006, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 211B.33.  A copy of the Complaint and attachments were sent by FAX and by United States mail on August 10, 2006. 

After reviewing the Complaint and attachments, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the Complaint does not state prima facie violations of Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.03 or 211B.06.

Based upon the Complaint and the supporting filings and for the reasons set out in the attached Memorandum,

IT IS ORDERED:

That the Complaint filed by Vincent D. Maloney against Jeffrey Anderson is DISMISSED.

 

 

Dated: August 11, 2006

/s/ Kathleen D. Sheehy

KATHLEEN D. SHEEHY

Administrative Law Judge

 

 

 

NOTICE

Under Minn. Stat. § 211B.36, subd. 5, this order is the final decision in this matter and a party aggrieved by this decision may seek judicial review as provided in Minn. Stat. § § 14.63 to 14.69.

 

MEMORANDUM

The Respondent, Jeffery Anderson, served one term (2002-2004) as State Representative for District 27B.  He was defeated by Jeanne Poppe in the 2004 election and is challenging Ms. Poppe for the same seat in the upcoming election.  The Complaint alleges that Mr. Anderson’s use of the term “reelect” on his campaign posters violates Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.03 and 211B.06.  According to the Complainant, only incumbents may use the term “reelect.”     

Minn. Stat. § 211B.03 specifically governs the use of the word “reelect” in campaign material.  It provides as follows:

A person or candidate may not, in the event of redistricting, use the term "reelect" in a campaign for elective office unless the candidate is the incumbent of that office and the office represents any part of the new district.  [Emphasis supplied.]

However, by its terms Minn. Stat. § 211B.03 only prohibits the use of the term “reelect” by candidates for offices in new districts that have been created as a result of redistricting.  It does not prohibit or restrict the use of the term “reelect’ by candidates for any other offices or in any other situations.  Therefore, the allegation that Mr. Anderson violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.03 by using the term “reelect” on his campaign posters is dismissed.

The Complaint also alleges that Mr. Anderson’s use of the term “reelect” violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, subd. 1, which prohibits intentional participation:

… [i]n the preparation, dissemination, or broadcast of paid political advertising or campaign material with respect to the personal or political character or acts of a candidate, or with respect to the effect of a ballot question, that is designed or tends to elect, injure, promote, or defeat a candidate for nomination or election to a public office or to promote or defeat a ballot question, that is false, and that the person knows is false or communicates to others with reckless disregard of whether it is false.

The Complaint alleges that since Mr. Anderson is not the incumbent, his use of the term “reelect” with respect to his candidacy for office in the current election, is a false statement within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06, subd. 1.

The dictionary defines “reelect” simply as “to elect again.”[1]  Although the word “reelect” is typically used in reference to a person who currently holds the office, the definition is broad enough to refer both to the incumbent and to a person who once held the office, left the office, and later seeks election to that office again.  Because Mr. Anderson once held the office, his use of the word “reelect” on his campaign posters does not render the posters false campaign material within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06.  There is nothing false about Mr. Anderson asking voters to “re-elect” him (or elect him again) to his former House seat.[2]  The Minnesota Supreme Court has observed that the statute is “directed against the evil of making false statements of fact.”[3]  It does not prohibit inferences or implications, even if misleading.

The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Complainant has failed to state prima facie violations of Minn. Stat. § 211B.03 or 211B.06.  The Complaint is therefore dismissed. 

K.D.S.    

 

 

 

 


[1] See both Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2006 ed.) and American Heritage Dictionary (2nd ed. 1991).

[2] The Complainant attached a copy of the decision in Bauman v. House Republican Campaign Committee, OAH File No. 7-0320-16264-CV, in support of his Complaint.  In that case, the panel concluded (and the Respondent conceded) that use of the word “re-elect” by candidates who had never previously held the offices sought rendered the campaign material false.  Unlike the situation in Bauman, Mr. Anderson has held the office before.    

[3] Kennedy v. Voss, 304 N.W.2d 299, 300 (Minn. 1981).