The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed a Columbia Heights city council recall election targeting Kay "KT" Jacobs, establishing new precedent for municipal recall procedures in the state. The court held that recall petitions must specifically allege malfeasance or nonfeasance to lawfully trigger special elections under Minnesota Statutes section 410.20.
Chief Justice Hudson wrote the opinion in *Kay "KT" Jacobs v. City of Columbia Heights*, filed July 24, 2024. Justice Hennesy took no part in the decision. The case arose from a July 24, 2023, resolution by the Columbia Heights City Council to hold a recall election regarding Jacobs based on a citizen petition.
The recall petition alleged that Jacobs used a fake name and made derogatory comments about the heritage and family background of a person running for city council during a telephone call. The petition further claimed Jacobs was untruthful during a city investigation into the incident and was subsequently stripped of her ability to serve on boards and commissions and censured by the council.
Jacobs responded by filing a petition under Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44, asking the district court to cancel her recall election, which was scheduled for February 13, 2024. The Supreme Court's syllabus states that "the petition to recall a member of a city council failed to allege malfeasance or nonfeasance, the constitutional prerequisites to recall an elected municipal official."
The court determined that these constitutional prerequisites are necessary to lawfully trigger a special recall election under Minnesota Statutes section 410.20. This ruling establishes important parameters for future recall efforts against municipal officials in Minnesota.
The case highlights the distinction between political disagreements and conduct that rises to the level of malfeasance or nonfeasance. While the recall petition outlined various allegations against Jacobs, including claims about derogatory comments and untruthfulness during an investigation, the Supreme Court found these did not meet the constitutional threshold required for a lawful recall.
Malfeasance typically refers to intentional wrongdoing or misconduct by a public official, while nonfeasance involves the failure to perform a required duty. The court's emphasis on these terms as "constitutional prerequisites" suggests that recall petitions must allege specific types of official misconduct rather than general behavioral concerns.
The decision provides clarity for municipalities across Minnesota regarding the standards that must be met before recall elections can proceed. Local governments and citizens seeking to initiate recall procedures must now ensure their petitions specifically allege conduct that constitutes malfeasance or nonfeasance.
Jacobs was represented by Gregory J. Joseph of Joseph Law Office PLLC in Waconia. The City of Columbia Heights and other respondents were represented by Bradley A. Kletscher and Tyler W. Eubank of Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd., in Coon Rapids.
The case originated in Anoka County and worked its way through the appellate system before reaching the Minnesota Supreme Court. The procedural history shows that Jacobs challenged the recall election through proper legal channels, ultimately succeeding in her appeal.
The timing of the court's decision, filed on July 24, 2024, came well after the originally scheduled February 13, 2024, recall election date. This suggests the legal proceedings effectively stayed the election pending resolution of the constitutional questions raised by Jacobs.
Minnesota Statutes section 410.20 governs recall elections for municipal officials, but the Supreme Court's interpretation adds important constitutional requirements that were not previously clarified in case law. This decision will likely influence how future recall petitions are drafted and evaluated by local election officials.
The court's reversal represents a victory for Jacobs, who successfully argued that the recall process was procedurally deficient. The decision also serves to protect elected officials from recall attempts that may be politically motivated but lack allegations of genuine misconduct in office.
For Columbia Heights residents who supported the recall, the decision means they would need to restart any recall effort with a petition that specifically alleges malfeasance or nonfeasance. The court's ruling does not address the underlying allegations against Jacobs but focuses solely on whether the recall petition met constitutional standards.
The precedent established by this case will guide future recall attempts across Minnesota's municipalities, ensuring that such extraordinary measures are reserved for cases involving genuine official misconduct rather than political disagreements or personal conflicts.