## Facts

- Minnesota’s constitution and implementing statutes authorize recall of certain officers, including the governor, for serious malfeasance or nonfeasance in the performance of official duties, or for conviction of a serious crime.
- A group of citizens filed a proposed recall petition against Governor Jesse Ventura with the Secretary of State, who forwarded it for judicial screening under Minn. Stat. § 211C.05.
- The petition alleged “serious malfeasance” based on Ventura’s book-related activities while in office.
- Petitioners claimed Ventura used state-provided security during a private book promotional tour.
- Petitioners alleged Ventura used the prestige of his office to increase his book’s price and sales.
- Petitioners asserted Ventura accepted “gifts and favors” from outside sources, including his publisher.
- Petitioners alleged a conflict of interest, claiming Ventura’s financial gain increased with more “outrageous” conduct.
- The matter reached the Minnesota Supreme Court at the initial statutory review stage to determine whether the allegations, if proven, would constitute grounds for recall.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed recall petition alleged specific facts that, if proven, would constitute “serious malfeasance or nonfeasance during the term of office in the performance of the officer’s duties.”
2. Whether allegations concerning book promotion, use of security, acceptance of gifts, and an asserted conflict of interest were sufficiently specific and tied to official duties to satisfy the recall pleading standard.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed the proposed recall petition at the initial review stage.
- The court held the petition did not allege specific facts that, if proven, would establish constitutionally and statutorily sufficient grounds for recall.
- Because the petition was legally insufficient on its face, the recall process did not proceed to a special master hearing or any further stage.

## Legal Principles

- Recall is limited to the grounds specified in Minn. Const. art. VIII, § 6; it is not a mechanism for addressing generalized political dissatisfaction.
- A proposed recall petition must allege specific, concrete facts; conclusory assertions and broad characterizations are insufficient under Minn. Stat. § 211C.05, subd. 1.
- “Malfeasance” for recall purposes must occur “in the performance of the officer’s duties,” requiring a direct connection between the alleged misconduct and identifiable official duties.
- Allegations that do not identify particular acts, timing, or how conduct violates a relevant legal duty are inadequate to trigger further recall proceedings.
- Conduct that is primarily private or commercial, without a clear nexus to official duties and serious wrongdoing, does not satisfy the recall standard.

## Conclusion

The court terminated the recall effort at the gatekeeping stage, ruling that the petition’s allegations about book promotion, security, gifts, and asserted conflicts were too vague and insufficiently connected to serious misconduct in the performance of gubernatorial duties to justify proceeding under Minnesota’s recall framework.


In re Proposed Petition to Recall Governor Jesse Ventura, 600 N.W.2d 714 (Minn. 1999)