Page:Kistner v. Simon (A20-1486) (2020) Order.pdf/4

, A20-1041 (Aug. 10, 2020). Given the undisputed public record regarding the suspension of the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots, petitioners had a duty to act well before November 3, 2020, to assert claims that challenged that procedure; asserting these claims 2 months after voting started, 3 weeks after voting ended, and less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board met to certify the election results is unreasonable. We also must consider the impact of petitioners’ requested relief on election officials, candidates, and voters who participated in the 2020 general election knowing that the witness requirement was suspended. Clark v. Pawlenty, 755 N.W.2d 293, 301 (Minn. 2008). Petitioners’ proposed recount of the entirety of the 2020 general election results would cast an unacceptable degree of uncertainty over the election, potentially leaving Minnesotans without adequate elected representation. The proposed full recount, regardless of the vote difference between candidates, see Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 1(b) (2018) (mandating a recount only with certain margins of difference), would impose unacceptable burdens on voters and election officials alike. Counts I and II must therefore be dismissed.

Count III of the petition focuses almost exclusively on the postelection reviews that were conducted after November 3, 2020. See Minn. Stat. § 206.89, subd. 2 (prohibiting the start of these reviews “before the 11th day after the state general election”). The facts available to us do not clearly establish that petitioners could have asserted this claim sooner. Laches therefore may not be applicable to this claim.

Count III must nonetheless be dismissed. Minnesota Statutes § 204B.44(b) requires the petitioner to serve the petition on the election official charged with a wrongful act. It is the duty of county auditors or other county or local officials to conduct postelection