STATE EX REL. 25 VOTERS v. C. G. SELVIG

Minnesota Supreme Court1927-03-04No. No. 26,007

170 Minn. 406

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court properly lacked jurisdiction to determine whether a candidate elected to Congress was disqualified from taking office, as the U.S. Constitution grants the House of Representatives exclusive authority to judge the qualifications of its own members. The order denying jurisdiction was affirmed.

Following a November 1926 general election, approximately 40 voters from Minnesota's Ninth congressional district sought a court order to disqualify the election winner, C. G. Selvig, on the grounds that he had violated the state's corrupt practices act by publishing false statements about his opponent during the campaign. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the matter, and the voters appealed.

The court held that state courts lack authority to adjudicate the qualifications of candidates for federal office once an election has been completed and its results declared. The U.S. Constitution vests in the House of Representatives alone the power to judge the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members. Any judgment by a state court on this question would be both improper and ineffective, as the ultimate determination belongs exclusively to Congress.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Jurisdiction of state courts over federal election disputes
Congressional exclusive power to judge qualifications of its members
Violation of state corrupt practices act during congressional campaign

Procedural posture

Voters appealed a district court's denial of their application for a writ requiring the successful congressional candidate to show cause why he should not be disqualified for election violations.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Taylor., C.

At the general election held in November, 1926, the respondent, C. G. Selvig, was a candidate for election as representative in Congress from the Ninth congressional district in this state and received a majority of the votes cast for that office. Thereafter some 40 of the voters of that district made an application to the district court of Polk county for an order requiring respondent to show cause why he should not be adjudged disqualified for election to that office, alleging as the ground therefor that he had violated the corrupt practices act of this state in that during the campaign for election he had published and circulated untrue statements concerning his opponent. The district court denied the application for lack of jurisdiction, and the relators appealed. Flaten v. Evale, 146 Minn. 463, 179 N. W. 213, cited by the relators, is not in point. That case involved a violation of the corrupt practices act as it related to primary elections. Such primary elections are not of the character contemplated or intended by the term election as used in the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of this state, and are not elections within the meaning of that term as there used. They are merely a method of nominating candidates for the various offices to be filled by the voters at the election intended by the Constitution. State ex rel. Gulden v. Johnson, 87 Minn. 221, 91 N. W. 604, 840; State ex rel. Nordin v. Erickson, 119 Minn. 152, 137 N. W. 385; Sawyer v. Frankson, 134 Minn. 258, 159 N. W. 1; Newberry v. United States, 256 U. S. 232, 41 Sup. Ct. 469, 65 L. ed. 913. The state may make such regulations and impose such conditions as it may deem necessary in respect to the nomination of candidates, the preparation of ballots, the placing of the names of candidates thereon and the manner in which the election shall be conducted, provided they are fair, impartial and reasonable, and afford the voters a fair and full opportunity to express their choice at the election. But such provisions in so far as they relate to the election of senators and representatives in Congress cannot be given an effect which will interfere with or encroach upon the power vested in the houses of Congress by the Constitution of the United States.

In the present case the election has been held and the result declared. The only question now open is whether the successful candidate shall be permitted to take his seat as a member of the house of representatives. The Constitution declares that each house of Congress “shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members.” Art. I, § 5. This provision gives the house of representatives exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the respondent is or is not disqualified from becoming a member of that body. State ex rel. McKusick v. Peers, 33 Minn. 81, 21 N. W. 860; State ex rel. Norwood v. Nelson, 141 Minn. 499, 169 N. W. 788; State ex rel. v. Crawford, 28 Fla. 441, 10 So. 118, 14 L. R. A. 253; McDill v. Board, 36 Wis. 505; State ex rel. v. Judges, 40 La. Ann. 598, 4 So. 482; Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 112 N. E. 91; Wheeler v. Board of Canvassers, 94 Mich. 448, 53 N. W. 914; State ex rel. v. District Court, 50 Mont. 134, 145 Pac. 721; Sutherland v. Miller, 79 W. Va. 796, 91 S. E. 993, L. R. A. 1917D, 1040.

Any judgment rendered by the court upon that question would be both officious and nugatory.

Order affirmed.