When a Minnesota county-seat-removal petition needs signatures equal to 60% of those who voted in the last general election, does that mean only people who actually voted can sign? And do signers have to be registered voters?

Plain-English summary

A petition drive was underway in Roseau County to relocate the county seat. On January 9, 1995, two petitioners filed a notice of intention to circulate a petition under Minn. Stat. ch. 372. The county attorney asked the AG two procedural questions about who counts as a qualified signer.

Minn. Stat. § 372.01 (1994) says a county-seat-removal petition must be "signed by a least 60 percent of those voting in the county at the last preceding general election." Read literally, that phrasing could mean either (a) the number of signatures must equal 60 percent of the last-election turnout, or (b) only those who personally voted in the last election are eligible to sign.

The AG concluded the language sets a count, not a substantive limit. Three reasons:

1. Pre-1985 statutory text was unambiguous. The earlier version expressly said the petition must be "signed by legal voters of the county to a number equal to not less than 60 percent of the whole number voting therein at the last preceding general election." That language plainly tied the 60-percent figure to the count of signatures needed.
2. The 1985 amendment was housekeeping. Chapter 109 of the 1985 Laws revised eight chapters of county statutes. Both the House author (Rep. Virgil Johnson) and the bill counsel (Dick Cox for the Association of Minnesota Counties) described the Chapter 372 changes as "language clean-up." The Senate Counsel's bill summary of "substantive changes" did not mention Chapter 372 at all. The act's own title described it as "revising the language of the text of chapters concerning county powers and county boards."
3. The statute's other parts are internally consistent only under the count reading. Section 372.01 requires affidavits about whether the signers are "legal voters of the County," and section 372.03 directs the board to verify the same conditions. Neither provision instructs the auditor or board to verify that signers actually voted in the previous election. If the legislature had meant to impose that substantive requirement, parallel changes would have been made.

For the registration question, the AG looked to Minn. Stat. § 201.014 (1994), which sets the legal qualifications of a voter. Registration is required before voting, but the AG read registration as "an administrative mechanism whereby that status is to be formally confirmed prior to casting a ballot," not as an added qualification. Minnesota court decisions and prior AG opinions had taken the same view across various election-petition contexts: Eastwood v. Donovan (Minn. 1960) for "electors," Gould v. City of Bloomington (Minn. App. 1986) for "qualified electors," and prior AG opinions 218-C-1 (Dec. 11, 1947) and 183-R (Sept. 17, 1932). The AG noted that other statutes (§§ 6.54, 204C.05 subd. 1b, 340A.416, 340A.602, 351.16) impose registration as an express signature requirement when the legislature so intends. Section 372.01 contains no such express requirement.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. Minnesota's election registration code in Chapter 201 has been recodified and amended multiple times since 1995, and the county-seat-removal procedures in Chapter 372 have also been revised. The general principle that "legal voter" status is distinct from registration status appears stable, but the specific statutory language should be checked against current text.

Historical context: what the AG concluded

Question one: did the 60 percent language require petition signers to have personally voted in the November 1994 general election?

Answer: No. The AG read the language as setting the number of signatures required, not as restricting who may sign. Eligibility to sign turns on legal-voter status under Minn. Stat. § 201.014 and Minn. Const. art. 7, § 1, not on whether the person voted in any particular election.

The AG walked through Chapter 109 of the 1985 Laws in detail to show that the rewording of § 372.01 was housekeeping, not substantive. Three pieces of legislative-history evidence supported the conclusion:

Floor explanations. Rep. Johnson described the Chapter 372 changes as "basically language clean-up and it improves the language determined in deciding petitions to change the county seat." Mr. Cox of the Association of Minnesota Counties told the Senate Local and Urban Affairs Committee that "Section 3 of the bill, beginning on page 16, amends Chapter 372. Again, clean-up language on the chapter having to do with changing county seats."

Bill summary. The summary of "substantive changes" prepared by Senate Counsel listed substantive changes elsewhere in the bill but made no reference to Chapter 372.

Act title. The title of Chapter 109 referenced specific substantive changes that did not implicate Chapter 372 and then described the act generally as "revising the language of the text of chapters concerning county powers and county boards." County of Hennepin v. City of Hopkins (Minn. 1953) recognized titles as a permissible aid to determining legislative intent.

The AG also relied on Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1994), which directs interpretation by reference to the circumstances of enactment, prior law, and contemporaneous legislative history.

Question two: must petition signers be registered under Chapter 201 to qualify as "legal voters" eligible to sign under § 372.01?

Answer: No. Minn. Stat. § 201.014 (1994) sets legal voter qualifications. Registration is not one of them. Registration is required before casting a ballot, but it is administrative confirmation of status, not a substantive qualification for voter status itself.

The AG cited a line of Minnesota court decisions and prior AG opinions reaching the same conclusion across analogous petition contexts: Eastwood v. Donovan (Minn. 1960) (the term "elector"), Gould v. City of Bloomington (Minn. App. 1986) ("qualified electors"), Op. Atty. Gen. 218-C-1 (Dec. 11, 1947) ("legal voter"), Op. Atty. Gen. 106E (March 6, 1946) (legal voters), Op. Atty. Gen. 183-R (Sept. 17, 1932) (qualified electors).

The AG also noted by contrast that other statutes expressly require registration when the legislature wants it (§§ 6.54, 204C.05 subd. 1b, 340A.416, 340A.602, 351.16). The absence of an analogous express requirement in § 372.01 is meaningful.

Common questions

Did this opinion address the substantive merits of the Roseau County petition?

No. This opinion answered only two narrow eligibility questions about petition signers. A companion AG opinion 106-e dated April 10, 1995, addressed the more substantive questions in the same Roseau County dispute: the affidavit standards for the petition signatures and the validity of the City of Warroad's $4.5 million offer toward a new courthouse if the seat moved.

How does this opinion interact with the 1985 statutory rewrite of Chapter 372?

The 1985 rewrite changed the wording of § 372.01 in ways that could be read as a substantive change. The AG canvassed legislative history and concluded the changes were not intended to be substantive. The bill author, the bill counsel, and the Senate Counsel summary all described the rewrite as language clean-up.

Is being registered required to sign other Minnesota election petitions?

It depends on the statute. The AG opinion lists several where registration is expressly required: petitions to remove certain officers (§ 6.54), candidate petitions in some contexts (§ 204C.05 subd. 1b), liquor-license petitions (§§ 340A.416, 340A.602), and certain officer-vacancy petitions (§ 351.16). Where the legislature wanted registration, it said so. For county-seat petitions under § 372.01, it did not.

Background and statutory framework

Minn. Stat. § 372.01 (1994) provides the form of petition required for a county-seat change and lists the affidavit assertions that must accompany it. The 60-percent threshold is keyed to the turnout of the last preceding general election in the county.

Minn. Stat. § 201.014 (1994) defines the qualifications of a legal voter under Minnesota law, principally age, residency, and U.S. citizenship. Minn. Const. art. 7, § 1, sets the constitutional baseline of voter eligibility.

The companion 1985 amendment also revised § 372.04, suggesting that the rewrite was a Chapter 372 housekeeping pass rather than a targeted substantive change. The legislative-history record in this opinion is unusually detailed because the county attorney's question turned on whether the 1985 rewording carried any substantive meaning at all.

Citations

• Minn. Stat. § 372.01 (1994); § 372.03; § 372.04; § 201.014 (1994); § 645.16 (1994); §§ 6.54, 204C.05 subd. 1b, 340A.416, 340A.602, 351.16.
• 1985 Minn. Laws ch. 109, § 3.
• Minn. Const. art. 7, § 1.
• County of Hennepin v. City of Hopkins, 239 Minn. 357, 58 N.W.2d 851 (1953).
• Eastwood v. Donovan, 259 Minn. 43, 105 N.W.2d 686 (1960).
• Gould v. City of Bloomington, 394 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
• Op. Atty. Gen. 218-C-1 (Dec. 11, 1947); 106E (March 6, 1946); 183-R (Sept. 17, 1932).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/106e-19950124.pdf

Original opinion text

COUNTY SEAT: REMOVAL: Otherwise qualified voters need not have actually voted at previous election or be registered to sign petition for changing county seat. Minn. Stat. §§ 372.01, 372.03 (1994).

106-e

January 24, 1995

Michelle E. Moren
Roseau County Attorney
309-1/2 Third Street N.W.
P.O. Box 239
Roseau, MN 56751

Dear Ms. Moren:

In your letter to the Office of the Attorney General, you set forth the following:

FACTS

On January 9, 1995, two petitioners filed a notice of intention to circulate a petition for changing the county seat, pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 372 (1994).

Minn. Stat. § 372.01 (1994) provides in pertinent part:

When a petition is presented to the auditor of any county in the following form: "To the county board of the county of _____, Minnesota: The undersigned legal voters of this county request that the county seat be changed to (here designate the place)," signed by a least 60 percent of those voting in the county at the last preceding general election, accompanied by affidavits of at least two of the signers stating that

(a) the petition signatures are genuine,

(b) they were signed within 60 days before the date of the affidavits, and

(c) when signing the petition the petitioners were legal voters of the county, and the notice of intention to circulate the petition under section 372.02 was given. the auditor shall immediately file the petition and affidavits, and make, seal, and file in the auditor's office an order for a special meeting of the county board to consider the petition.

You then ask substantially the following questions:

QUESTION ONE

Does this requirement that the petitions be signed by "60 percent of those voting in the county at the last preceding general election," mean that only individuals who actually voted in Roseau County in November 1994, will be eligible to sign the petition?

OPINION

While the matter is not free from doubt, it is our opinion that the language referred to does not require that each petition signer must have actually voted in the county in the November, 1994 general election. Rather we believe that the petition would be valid if signed by a number of qualified voters equal to 60 percent of the number of persons voting in the last general election.

Prior to 1985, such was clearly the case. Minn. Stat. § 372.01 (1984) provided in pertinent part:

When there shall be presented to the auditor of any county a petition substantially in the following form: "To the county board of the county of __, Minnesota: The undersigned legal voters of this county pray that the county-seat thereof be changed to (here designate the place)," signed by legal voters of the county to a number equal to not less than 60 percent of the whole number voting therein at the last preceding general election ... the auditor shall forthwith file the petition and affidavits, and make, seal, and file in his office an order for a special meeting of the county board to consider such petition,

This language clearly required only that the number of signers equal at least 60 percent of the number of persons voting at the preceding election. However, that language was changed in 1985 by Act of May 10, 1985, ch. 109, § 3, 1985 Minn. Laws at 271. Standing alone, this change in wording would suggest a legislative intent to change the 60 percent requirement from a reference to the number of signatures required, to a substantive requirement that the signatories actually be persons who voted at the previous election. For a number of reasons, however, we do not believe such a change was intended. Rather, the 1985 bill itself, its legislative history and the relationship between the subject language and other provisions of Minn. Stat. ch. 372, all indicate that the 1985 amendment was not intended to make a substantive change in the petitioning requirement.

It is elementary that the ultimate goal of statutory construction is to ascertain legislative intent. In undertaking that determination, we may consider, among other things the circumstances under which the law was enacted, the former law, if any, including other laws upon its same or similar subjects and contemporaneous legislative history. See Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (1994).

A review of Chapter 109 of the 1985 Laws in its entirety discloses that, while the bill did effectuate some substantive changes in the law applicable to counties, the majority of changes made in revising each section of eight entire chapters of statutes pertaining to counties were plainly of a housekeeping nature not intended to make any substantive changes but simply to revise the statutory language contained in those chapters.

The presentations to committees in both houses of the legislature considering House File 516, which became Chapter 109, also indicate that the changes to Chapter 372 made in section 3 of the bill fall into the housekeeping category. For example, Representative Virgil Johnson, House author in explaining the bill to the House Local and Urban Affairs Committee, on March 5, 1985, described the proposed amendments to Chapter 372 as follows: "Chapter 372, changing of county seats, that's basically language clean-up and it improves the language determined in deciding petitions to change the county seat."

Dick Cox, counsel for the Association of Minnesota Counties, also spoke on the bill, and stated:

House File 516 is actually phase two of a multi-year effort to modernize and systematize and update county statutes. It's here before you to remove some of this language, as Representative Johnson points out, that sort of sounds like Dickens or at least Tobacco Road. It has been on the books for a lot of years. In many cases the language goes back as far as we can trace in the official statutes for 1905, the revised laws of that year. Which means, in effect, some of the language was around before that. Probably in the 1800's. Basically we are interested in codification and then update and revision.

In addressing the Senate Local and Urban Affairs Committee on April 9, 1985, Mr. Cox likewise said: "Section 3 of the bill, beginning on page 16, amends Chapter 372. Again, clean-up language on the chapter having to do with changing county seats." A bill summary of "substantive changes" contained in House File 516, prepared by the office of Senate Counsel, was also presented to the Committee. That summary contains no reference to any proposed language changes for Chapter 372.

Our conclusion is further supported by the title to Chapter 109 itself which contains specific references to particular substantive changes which do not implicate Chapter 372, and then indicates that the Act is one "revising the language of the text of chapters concerning county powers and county boards." While the titles of acts of the legislature are not determinative in themselves, they may be referred to in ascertaining legislative intent. See, e.g., County of Hennepin v. City of Hopkins, 239 Minn. 357, 58 N.W.2d 851 (1953).

Finally, section 372.01 as amended remains consistent with itself and other provisions of Chapter 372 only to the extent that the 60 percent requirement is interpreted as referring to the number of signatures needed rather than requiring signers be persons who actually voted at the previous election. Minn. Stat. § 372.01 both before and after the 1985 amendment requires affidavits concerning the petition signatures, i.e., that they are genuine, were signed within 60 days prior to the affidavits and that the signers were "legal voters of the County." Section 372.03, before and after 1985, provides for the Board to inquire into and verify the same conditions contained in this affidavit and also determine whether any signatures have been withdrawn. The board is required to strike from the petition all signatures not meeting the affidavit criteria and any which have been withdrawn. Neither the required affidavits nor the board's review-and-strike authority contain any reference to the question of whether a signer actually voted in the previous election. Had the legislature intended to impose such a new requirement in 1985, it seems clear that parallel changes would have been made to conform the certification and board review provisions to include that requirement. The fact that no such amendments were made is further support for the conclusion that no additional substantive requirements for the petitioners were intended.

For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that legal voters of the county need not have actually voted in the 1994 general election to be counted in determining whether the 60 percent requirement of section 372.01 has been met.

QUESTION TWO

Must persons be registered pursuant to Minn. Stat. ch. 201 to be considered a "legal voters" eligible to sign a petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 372.01 (1994)?

OPINION

We answer your question in the negative. As you point out, Minn. Stat. § 201.014 (1994) sets forth the legal qualifications concerning a person's eligibility as a voter. See also Minn. Const. art. 7, § 1. The fact that an eligible voter is required to register prior to actually voting does not, in our view, impose an added qualification upon the status of being a "legal" voter. Rather, it is more in the nature of an administrative mechanism whereby that status is to be formally confirmed prior to casting a ballot.

This conclusion is consistent with several Minnesota court decisions and opinions of this office which have addressed the status of unregistered voters as petition signers under various statutes and charter provisions. See, e.g., Eastwood v. Donovan, 259 Minn. 43, 105 N.W.2d 686 (1960) ("elector"); Gould v. City of Bloomington, 394 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) ("qualified electors"); Op. Atty. Gen. 218-C-1 December 11, 1947 ("legal voter"); 106E, March 6, 1946 (legal voters); 183-R September 17, 1932 (qualified electors).

If the legislature intended to impose registration as a condition for signing the petitions, it could easily have imposed that requirement expressly. C.f. Minn. Stat. §§ 6.54, 204C.05, subd. 1b, 340A.416, 340A.602, 351.16 (1994).

Thus, it is our view that registration is not required as a condition for eligibility to sign the petitions pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 372.01.

Best regards,

HUBERT H. HUMPHREY III
Attorney General

KENNETH E. RASCHKE, JR.
Assistant Attorney General