UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Madeline Pavek, Ethan Sykes, DSCC, and  Case No. 19-cv-3000 (SRN/DTS)    
DCCC,                                                                    

          Plaintiffs,                 ORDER STAYING CASE                 

v.                                                                       

Steven Simon, in his official capacity as the                            
Minnesota Secretary of State,                                            

          Defendant.                                                     



Alexi Machek Velez, Jyoti Jasrasaria, and Marc E. Elias, Perkins Coie LLP, 700 13th 
Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C., 20005-3960; Kevin J. Hamilton, Perkins Coie 
LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900, Seattle, WA 98101-3099; Katherine M. Swenson 
and Sybil L. Dunlop, Greene Espel PLLP, 222 South 9th Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, 
MN 55402, for Plaintiffs.                                                

Nathan J. Hartshorn, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 
1800, Saint Paul, MN 55101-2134, for Defendant.                          

Cameron  Thomas  Norris,  Jeffrey  M.  Harris,  and  William  S.  Consovoy,  Consovoy 
McCarthy PLLC, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22209; Thomas H. 
Boyd, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500, Minneapolis, MN 
55402-4629, for Amicus Curiae Honest Elections Project.                  

Richard G. Morgan, Lewis Brisbois, 90 South 7th Street, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 
55402, for Intervenor-Defendants.                                        


SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge                        
    This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ and Defendant Secretary of State 
Steven  Simon’s  Joint  Motion  to  Stay  further  proceedings  in  this  case  pending  the 
conclusion of the 2021 Minnesota Legislative Session (Doc. No. 85).  For the foregoing 
reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and stays this case until May 17, 2021—the last 
scheduled  day  of  the  2021  regular  session  of  the  Minnesota  Legislature—or  until 

legislation that moots or otherwise resolves this case is enacted, whichever occurs first. 
 I.   BACKGROUND                                                         

    On June 15, 2020, this Court preliminarily enjoined Defendant Minnesota Secretary 
of State Steve Simon (Defendant or “Secretary”) from enforcing Minn. Stat. § 204D.13, 
subd. 2 (2018), otherwise known as the “Ballot Order” statute, which requires major 
political party candidates in Minnesota general elections to be listed on the ballot in reverse 
order based on the average number of votes that their party received in the last state general 
election.1  See Pavek v. Simon, No. 19-cv-3000 (SRN/DTS) (Doc. No. 64), 

, at *1, *29–30 (D. Minn. June 15, 2020).  The Court instead ordered the Secretary 
to conduct a lottery whereby Minnesota’s four current major political parties are randomly 
assigned, by lot, a single statewide ballot order that governs the appearance of the parties’ 

candidates in every partisan race in Minnesota’s 2020 General Election.  Id. at *30.  The 
Court presumes familiarity with that order.2                              



1    The Court also denied the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) under Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  See Pavek, 

, at *1, *29.             

2    Since the Court’s preliminary injunction order, the Court has granted permissive 
intervention to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the National Republican Congressional 
Committee,  the  National  Republican  Senatorial  Committee,  the  Republican  National 
Committee, and the Republican Party of Minnesota (Intervenor-Defendants) (see Doc. No. 
96), and denied Intervenor-Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay the Court’s preliminary 
injunction order pending appeal (see Doc. No. 100).                       
    On July 8, 2020, Plaintiffs and the Defendant Secretary filed the present joint motion 
to  stay  this  case  until  the  conclusion  of  the  2021  regular  session  of  the  Minnesota 

Legislature, scheduled to occur on May 17, 2021.  (See Joint Mot. to Stay [Doc. No. 85] at 
1.)  Plaintiffs and Defendant Secretary contend that a stay is appropriate—and that the 
Court’s preliminary injunction order will govern ballot order for Minnesota’s 2020 General 
Election—because it will conserve judicial resources by giving the Minnesota Legislature 
an opportunity to resolve the Ballot Order statute’s constitutional infirmities.  (Joint Mem. 
in Supp. of Mot. to Stay [Doc. No. 87] at 1–3.)  The parties also note a stay will impose no 

hardship because their resources will be preserved by not litigating a matter that may be 
rendered moot.  (Id. at 3.)  Finally, they contend a stay will “provide certainty for voters 
and election administrators and ensure the orderly and efficient administration of the 2020 
General Election.”  (Id.)                                                 
    Intervenor-Defendants respond that a stay until May 2021 would unjustifiably delay 

resolution of this case because the possibility that the Minnesota Legislature might amend 
the Ballot Order statute is too speculative.  (Intervenor-Defendants’ Mem. in Opp’n to Stay 
(“ID Opp’n Mem.”) [Doc. No. 97] at 1.)  They assert that no such bill has been introduced, 
that the Ballot Order statute has been on the books for decades, and that a more appropriate 
stay would suspend enforcement of the Court’s preliminary injunction order pending 

appeal.  (Id. at 1–2.)                                                    
 II.  DISCUSSION                                                         

    “It is well-established that ‘the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power 
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy 
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’ ”  Stainbrook v. Minn. Dep’t of 
Pub. Safety, 

 (D. Minn. 2017) (quoting Cottrell v. Duke, 

 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see 
also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 

 (1936) (same).  A district court has “ ‘broad 
discretion to stay proceedings when appropriate’ ” to control its docket.  Tovar v. Essentia 
Health, 

 (D. Minn. 2018) (quoting Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps 
of Eng’rs, 

 (8th Cir. 2006)).  In considering a stay, the Court considers 
relevant factors, including but not necessarily limited to (1) the conservation of judicial 

resources;  (2)  maintaining  control  of  the  court’s  docket;  (3)  providing  for  the  just 
determination of cases; and (4) the potential for duplicative efforts and wasted resources 
of the parties and hardship to the party opposing the stay.  

 at 956–57 (citing Edens v. 
Volkswagen Grp. Of Am., Inc., No. 16-cv-0750 (WMW/LIB), 

, at *1–2 
(D. Minn. May 24, 2016)).  The party requesting a stay bears the burden of establishing the 

need for a stay.  

 at 957 (citing Edens, 

, at *1–2).    
    The Court finds that a stay of further proceedings until the end of the regular 2021 
Minnesota Legislative session—or until legislation that moots or otherwise resolves this 
case is enacted, whichever occurs first—is warranted.  With respect to the conservation of 
judicial resources and docket control, a stay will conserve judicial time and energy by 

allowing the Minnesota Legislature to address the constitutional concerns raised by the 
Court in its preliminary injunction order, which may moot this litigation entirely.  Indeed, 
contrary  to  Intervenor-Defendants’  assertion,  two  bills  have  been  introduced  in  the 
Minnesota Legislature that would afford precisely the final relief sought by Plaintiffs: a 
uniform rotation system under which all major political party candidates are listed first on 
Minnesota’s general election ballot approximately the same number of times throughout 

the state.  See H.F. 4071, 91st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2020) (repealing the current text of 
Minn. Stat. § 204D.13, subd. 2, and replacing it with a name rotation system); S.F. 2985, 
91st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2020) (same).  If those bills are enacted, Plaintiffs will obtain 
the precise relief this Court declined as preliminary relief.  See Pavek, 

, 
at  *29  (declining  to  require,  as  preliminary  relief,  rotation  of  major  political  party 
candidates because of the untested nature of the algorithm and insufficient time for the 

Secretary to recertify counties’ tabulation machines and software under such an approach).  
Moreover, a stay will enhance the Court’s control over the docket by pausing a proceeding 
that has already consumed significant judicial resources and, absent a stay, will likely 
consume more in the future.                                               
    A stay will also allow the Court to avoid what it considers to be a significant 

potential for duplicative efforts and wasted party resources, all while preserving the ability 
of the Court to resolve the case in the future.  If a stay is not granted and the parties proceed, 
it is entirely possible that all parties to this case may expend significant time and resources 
litigating a matter that the Minnesota Legislature might resolve by passing either of the two 
bills mentioned above.  In similar circumstances, other courts have acknowledged the value 

of a stay to give the legislature time to address the issue.  See, e.g., Luckey v. U.S. Dep’t of 
the Navy, No. 18-cv-06071-HSG, 

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019) 
(granting stay pending either passage of a particular bill before Congress, or the end of the 
Congressional session, whichever occurred first); Stinnie v. Holcomb, 

, 
661 (W.D. Va. 2019) (staying case based in part on possibility that Virginia Legislature 
would repeal offending provision, and noting that even if it failed to do so there would be 

ample time for the Court to address the merits of the case); Stainbrook, 239 F. Supp.3d at 
1127 (staying proceedings pending legislative approval of parties’ settlement agreement); 
Order Granting Motion to Stay, Ferreira v. Wall, No. 15-219-ML-LDA (Doc. No. 25) (D. 
R.I. June 2, 2016) (granting stay due to pending legislation that would resolve case).  If no 
such law is enacted, then the Court will resume proceedings in this matter in late May of 
2021, which is more than a year before the 2022 Minnesota General Election.  Either way, 

the Court’s ability to provide for the just determination of this case is preserved. 
    Finally, the Court finds that to the extent there is any hardship inflicted upon 
Intervenor-Defendants—the only parties who oppose the stay—such hardship is extremely 
minimal.    Intervenor-Defendants  expressly  sought  intervention  for  the  purpose  of 
appealing the Court’s preliminary injunction order.  (See Intervenor-Defendants’ Mem. In 

Supp. of Mot. to Intervene [Doc. No. 67] at 2.)  They have filed that appeal.  (See Doc. 
Nos. 90, 95.)  A stay of further proceedings before this Court does not affect their appellate 
rights.  Moreover, even if the Minnesota Legislature does not take action that resolves this 
case, resuming these proceedings in late May of 2021 leaves more than year before 
Minnesota’s next general election, which is ample time for the Court to address the merits. 

 III.  CONCLUSION                                                        

    Based  on  the  submissions  and  the  entire  file  and  proceedings  herein,  IT  IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ and Defendant Secretary’s Joint Motion to Stay 
further proceedings in this case pending the conclusion of the 2021 Minnesota Legislative 
Session (Doc. No. 85) is GRANTED.  The Court hereby stays this case until May 17, 
2021—the last day of the 2021 regular session of the Minnesota Legislature—or until 

legislation that moots or otherwise resolves this case is enacted, whichever occurs first. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.                                                         



Dated: July 16, 2020               s/Susan Richard Nelson                     
                                  Susan Richard Nelson                   
                                  United States District Judge           

                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                             
                    DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA                                


Madeline Pavek, Ethan Sykes, DSCC, and  Case No. 19-cv-3000 (SRN/DTS)    
DCCC,                                                                    

          Plaintiffs,                 ORDER STAYING CASE                 

v.                                                                       

Steven Simon, in his official capacity as the                            
Minnesota Secretary of State,                                            

          Defendant.                                                     



Alexi Machek Velez, Jyoti Jasrasaria, and Marc E. Elias, Perkins Coie LLP, 700 13th 
Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C., 20005-3960; Kevin J. Hamilton, Perkins Coie 
LLP, 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900, Seattle, WA 98101-3099; Katherine M. Swenson 
and Sybil L. Dunlop, Greene Espel PLLP, 222 South 9th Street, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, 
MN 55402, for Plaintiffs.                                                

Nathan J. Hartshorn, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 
1800, Saint Paul, MN 55101-2134, for Defendant.                          

Cameron  Thomas  Norris,  Jeffrey  M.  Harris,  and  William  S.  Consovoy,  Consovoy 
McCarthy PLLC, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22209; Thomas H. 
Boyd, Winthrop & Weinstine, PA, 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500, Minneapolis, MN 
55402-4629, for Amicus Curiae Honest Elections Project.                  

Richard G. Morgan, Lewis Brisbois, 90 South 7th Street, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 
55402, for Intervenor-Defendants.                                        


SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge                        
    This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ and Defendant Secretary of State 
Steven  Simon’s  Joint  Motion  to  Stay  further  proceedings  in  this  case  pending  the 
conclusion of the 2021 Minnesota Legislative Session (Doc. No. 85).  For the foregoing 
reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion and stays this case until May 17, 2021—the last 
scheduled  day  of  the  2021  regular  session  of  the  Minnesota  Legislature—or  until 

legislation that moots or otherwise resolves this case is enacted, whichever occurs first. 
 I.   BACKGROUND                                                         

    On June 15, 2020, this Court preliminarily enjoined Defendant Minnesota Secretary 
of State Steve Simon (Defendant or “Secretary”) from enforcing Minn. Stat. § 204D.13, 
subd. 2 (2018), otherwise known as the “Ballot Order” statute, which requires major 
political party candidates in Minnesota general elections to be listed on the ballot in reverse 
order based on the average number of votes that their party received in the last state general 
election.1  See Pavek v. Simon, No. 19-cv-3000 (SRN/DTS) (Doc. No. 64), 

, at *1, *29–30 (D. Minn. June 15, 2020).  The Court instead ordered the Secretary 
to conduct a lottery whereby Minnesota’s four current major political parties are randomly 
assigned, by lot, a single statewide ballot order that governs the appearance of the parties’ 

candidates in every partisan race in Minnesota’s 2020 General Election.  Id. at *30.  The 
Court presumes familiarity with that order.2                              



1    The Court also denied the Secretary’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 13) under Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).  See Pavek, 

, at *1, *29.             

2    Since the Court’s preliminary injunction order, the Court has granted permissive 
intervention to Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., the National Republican Congressional 
Committee,  the  National  Republican  Senatorial  Committee,  the  Republican  National 
Committee, and the Republican Party of Minnesota (Intervenor-Defendants) (see Doc. No. 
96), and denied Intervenor-Defendants’ Emergency Motion to Stay the Court’s preliminary 
injunction order pending appeal (see Doc. No. 100).                       
    On July 8, 2020, Plaintiffs and the Defendant Secretary filed the present joint motion 
to  stay  this  case  until  the  conclusion  of  the  2021  regular  session  of  the  Minnesota 

Legislature, scheduled to occur on May 17, 2021.  (See Joint Mot. to Stay [Doc. No. 85] at 
1.)  Plaintiffs and Defendant Secretary contend that a stay is appropriate—and that the 
Court’s preliminary injunction order will govern ballot order for Minnesota’s 2020 General 
Election—because it will conserve judicial resources by giving the Minnesota Legislature 
an opportunity to resolve the Ballot Order statute’s constitutional infirmities.  (Joint Mem. 
in Supp. of Mot. to Stay [Doc. No. 87] at 1–3.)  The parties also note a stay will impose no 

hardship because their resources will be preserved by not litigating a matter that may be 
rendered moot.  (Id. at 3.)  Finally, they contend a stay will “provide certainty for voters 
and election administrators and ensure the orderly and efficient administration of the 2020 
General Election.”  (Id.)                                                 
    Intervenor-Defendants respond that a stay until May 2021 would unjustifiably delay 

resolution of this case because the possibility that the Minnesota Legislature might amend 
the Ballot Order statute is too speculative.  (Intervenor-Defendants’ Mem. in Opp’n to Stay 
(“ID Opp’n Mem.”) [Doc. No. 97] at 1.)  They assert that no such bill has been introduced, 
that the Ballot Order statute has been on the books for decades, and that a more appropriate 
stay would suspend enforcement of the Court’s preliminary injunction order pending 

appeal.  (Id. at 1–2.)                                                    
 II.  DISCUSSION                                                         

    “It is well-established that ‘the power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power 
inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy 
of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.’ ”  Stainbrook v. Minn. Dep’t of 
Pub. Safety, 

 (D. Minn. 2017) (quoting Cottrell v. Duke, 

 (8th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)); see 
also Landis v. N. Am. Co., 

 (1936) (same).  A district court has “ ‘broad 
discretion to stay proceedings when appropriate’ ” to control its docket.  Tovar v. Essentia 
Health, 

 (D. Minn. 2018) (quoting Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps 
of Eng’rs, 

 (8th Cir. 2006)).  In considering a stay, the Court considers 
relevant factors, including but not necessarily limited to (1) the conservation of judicial 

resources;  (2)  maintaining  control  of  the  court’s  docket;  (3)  providing  for  the  just 
determination of cases; and (4) the potential for duplicative efforts and wasted resources 
of the parties and hardship to the party opposing the stay.  

 at 956–57 (citing Edens v. 
Volkswagen Grp. Of Am., Inc., No. 16-cv-0750 (WMW/LIB), 

, at *1–2 
(D. Minn. May 24, 2016)).  The party requesting a stay bears the burden of establishing the 

need for a stay.  

 at 957 (citing Edens, 

, at *1–2).    
    The Court finds that a stay of further proceedings until the end of the regular 2021 
Minnesota Legislative session—or until legislation that moots or otherwise resolves this 
case is enacted, whichever occurs first—is warranted.  With respect to the conservation of 
judicial resources and docket control, a stay will conserve judicial time and energy by 

allowing the Minnesota Legislature to address the constitutional concerns raised by the 
Court in its preliminary injunction order, which may moot this litigation entirely.  Indeed, 
contrary  to  Intervenor-Defendants’  assertion,  two  bills  have  been  introduced  in  the 
Minnesota Legislature that would afford precisely the final relief sought by Plaintiffs: a 
uniform rotation system under which all major political party candidates are listed first on 
Minnesota’s general election ballot approximately the same number of times throughout 

the state.  See H.F. 4071, 91st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2020) (repealing the current text of 
Minn. Stat. § 204D.13, subd. 2, and replacing it with a name rotation system); S.F. 2985, 
91st Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2020) (same).  If those bills are enacted, Plaintiffs will obtain 
the precise relief this Court declined as preliminary relief.  See Pavek, 

, 
at  *29  (declining  to  require,  as  preliminary  relief,  rotation  of  major  political  party 
candidates because of the untested nature of the algorithm and insufficient time for the 

Secretary to recertify counties’ tabulation machines and software under such an approach).  
Moreover, a stay will enhance the Court’s control over the docket by pausing a proceeding 
that has already consumed significant judicial resources and, absent a stay, will likely 
consume more in the future.                                               
    A stay will also allow the Court to avoid what it considers to be a significant 

potential for duplicative efforts and wasted party resources, all while preserving the ability 
of the Court to resolve the case in the future.  If a stay is not granted and the parties proceed, 
it is entirely possible that all parties to this case may expend significant time and resources 
litigating a matter that the Minnesota Legislature might resolve by passing either of the two 
bills mentioned above.  In similar circumstances, other courts have acknowledged the value 

of a stay to give the legislature time to address the issue.  See, e.g., Luckey v. U.S. Dep’t of 
the Navy, No. 18-cv-06071-HSG, 

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2019) 
(granting stay pending either passage of a particular bill before Congress, or the end of the 
Congressional session, whichever occurred first); Stinnie v. Holcomb, 

, 
661 (W.D. Va. 2019) (staying case based in part on possibility that Virginia Legislature 
would repeal offending provision, and noting that even if it failed to do so there would be 

ample time for the Court to address the merits of the case); Stainbrook, 239 F. Supp.3d at 
1127 (staying proceedings pending legislative approval of parties’ settlement agreement); 
Order Granting Motion to Stay, Ferreira v. Wall, No. 15-219-ML-LDA (Doc. No. 25) (D. 
R.I. June 2, 2016) (granting stay due to pending legislation that would resolve case).  If no 
such law is enacted, then the Court will resume proceedings in this matter in late May of 
2021, which is more than a year before the 2022 Minnesota General Election.  Either way, 

the Court’s ability to provide for the just determination of this case is preserved. 
    Finally, the Court finds that to the extent there is any hardship inflicted upon 
Intervenor-Defendants—the only parties who oppose the stay—such hardship is extremely 
minimal.    Intervenor-Defendants  expressly  sought  intervention  for  the  purpose  of 
appealing the Court’s preliminary injunction order.  (See Intervenor-Defendants’ Mem. In 

Supp. of Mot. to Intervene [Doc. No. 67] at 2.)  They have filed that appeal.  (See Doc. 
Nos. 90, 95.)  A stay of further proceedings before this Court does not affect their appellate 
rights.  Moreover, even if the Minnesota Legislature does not take action that resolves this 
case, resuming these proceedings in late May of 2021 leaves more than year before 
Minnesota’s next general election, which is ample time for the Court to address the merits. 

 III.  CONCLUSION                                                        

    Based  on  the  submissions  and  the  entire  file  and  proceedings  herein,  IT  IS 
HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ and Defendant Secretary’s Joint Motion to Stay 
further proceedings in this case pending the conclusion of the 2021 Minnesota Legislative 
Session (Doc. No. 85) is GRANTED.  The Court hereby stays this case until May 17, 
2021—the last day of the 2021 regular session of the Minnesota Legislature—or until 

legislation that moots or otherwise resolves this case is enacted, whichever occurs first. 
IT IS SO ORDERED.                                                         



Dated: July 16, 2020               s/Susan Richard Nelson                     
                                  Susan Richard Nelson                   
                                  United States District Judge