Learned In The Law
The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that an attorney must have an active law license to qualify for judicial office
The Secretary of State does not err in refusing to place on the ballot for judicial office a person whose law license in Minnesota is currently suspended, because an attorney whose license is suspended is not “learned in the law,” as Article VI, Section 5 of the Minnesota Constitution requires for judges of the supreme court, the court of appeals, and the district court.
Petition denied.
Applicant
MacDonald, a Minnesota resident and registered voter, sought to appear on Minnesota’s 2024 general election ballot for Associate Justice – Supreme Court 5. During the candidate filing period for the 2024 election, MacDonald went to the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State and attempted to file an affidavit of candidacy. Although she stated in her affidavit of candidacy that “I am learned in the law,” the printout from the Lawyer Registration Office website she included with her filing indicated that she is “Not Authorized” to practice law and that her current disciplinary status is “SUSPENDED.” The Secretary of State’s office rejected MacDonald’s affidavit of candidacy.
MacDonald has been an attorney at law since 1986 and practiced law in Minnesota from 1986 to 2021. But her law license in Minnesota was suspended in June 2021. In re MacDonald, 962 N.W.2d 451, 466, 470 (Minn. 2021) (per curiam) (indefinitely suspending MacDonald with no right to petition for reinstatement for four months for making knowingly false statements about the integrity of a judge and failing to obtain a client’s written consent to a fee-splitting arrangement). MacDonald remains suspended, and currently she is not authorized to practice law in Minnesota.
The Minnesota Constitution requires that a candidate for judicial office be “learned in the Law”
Accordingly, there is a threshold issue before us: whether MacDonald is “learned in the law” and thus qualified to be a judge of the supreme court under Article VI, Section 5 of the Minnesota Constitution. If MacDonald cannot satisfy what she herself concedes to be the constitutional requirement for eligibility to be a judge of the supreme court, there is no need to reach her argument that the requirements in Minn. Stat. § 204B.06, subd. 8, unconstitutionally impose greater requirements than those within the Minnesota Constitution. And MacDonald concedes that at present, “[h]er Minnesota law license is suspended.” Thus, the threshold—and here dispositive—question is whether an attorney whose Minnesota law license is suspended is “learned in the law” as that term is used in the Minnesota Constitution.
Precedent
We find Daly and its progeny controlling as to the question here. Those cases dictate that to be qualified under Article VI, Section 5 of the Minnesota Constitution to serve as a judge of the supreme court, court of appeals, or district court, a person must be admitted to practice law and not be suspended or disbarred. Because MacDonald is currently suspended from practicing law in Minnesota, she is constitutionally ineligible to serve as a supreme court justice. Accordingly, there was no error or omission by the Secretary of State in excluding MacDonald from that ballot, and her petition fails.
Footnote on recusal
The only candidate on the 2024 general election ballot for this office is Associate Justice Anne McKeig. To avoid any possible appearance of bias, all members of the court recused, and this case was instead considered and decided by a panel of five acting members, who are “court of appeals and district court judges, all of whom, based upon their term of office and by operation of the mandatory judicial retirement law, Minn. Stat. §§ 490.121, subd. 21d, and 490.125, subd. 1 (2022), will never stand again for judicial election in the State of Minnesota.” MacDonald v. Simon, No. A24-1022, Order at 2 (Minn. filed July 15, 2024).
(Mike Frisch)