Reporting. A resolution exists which would make sense. Since Gomez was followed about the fundamental right to abortion under Minnesota's Constitution requiring the strictest of scrutiny, the question of law to be appealed is was there any error in conforming the decision with Gomez? Confirming the ongoing precedential reach of Gomez was the trial Court's key conclusion of law. Even with the U.S. Supreme Court departing from its parallel precedent, State law always can be capable of being more protective of a personal right per State Constitution law than the level of recognition and protection of a right accorded by the federal top court - with different personnel than earlier and construing a different Constitution - departing unwisely from its precedent, with a hand-waving early footnote denigrating federal decads long precedent, and, in effect, denying a federal right to privacy.
Because the likelihood of any reversal of the Minnesota trial court's carefully reasoned decision being minuscule, with his budget so hamstrung by Republican politics per this last budgeting Ellison is justified in declining to invest any scarce funding into a futile effort.
Ellison should tender the appellate rights to any and all of the Republican AG candidates who'd take the tender, pro bono, (not wasting the public's funds chasing a rainbow), with such tender taken on out of deeply held belief with a tender clearly not to be expected to be taken up absent strongly held feelings of conscience. If no takers, end of story, the meaning all the AG candidates agree, dead cause.
If one or more would take it, let them allocate, and proceed.
Bless the result. If neither of the three in the GOP primary want the case, that would evidence agreement with Ellison that it is a dead chance to even try. If any accept a tender, they will give it their all, and there would be no cause to claim Ellison took it up insincerely with a half-hearted showing, so all should be satisfied. With Ellison the most experienced lawyer running, the three GOP candidates would each have an opportunity to "show his stuff." Bravo to that. But unlike other ill-advised extremely over-eager activist jurists, Minnesota Justices respect precedent.
Meaning Gomez having set a declared Minnesota legal standard should be expected to be followed.
__________UPDATE__________
Strib published an excellent tight report on the thinking of Schultz and Wardlow in their primary contest, and Ellison, on the abortion issue.
Schultz and Wardlow appear to assert the AG has a Constitutional duty to defend statutes, without acknowledging that the legislature has a duty to not pass unconstitutional legislation and an AG has discretion to determine whether a lower court decision holding legislation unconstitutional is correct under judicial precedent, and whether, as a policy matter, precedent should or should not be controlling over the will of the legislature.
Considering that federal and state law is that a top court can decisively rule legislation constitutional or unconstitutional in protection of the peoples' rights, that power is preeminent. Gomez is established law at present, and Ellison supports it while Wardlow is adamant he would, if elected, aim to convince the Court to overturn or restrict the reach of Gomez.
Since the current District Court decision follows Gomez, Ellison is not obligated to go to court against it because he has the discretion going with the office to agree that statutes under review are indeed unconstitutional under Gomez, and that Gomez is good controlling law. To postulate some form of blind duty to the legislature trumping discretionary judgment powers of the AG office seems incorrect, with no strong basis in law for making such an assertion against the power and duties of the executive branch.
Should Republicans take the AG office in some as yet unheld future election, there would be a strong likelihood of a case again revisiting the question of the ongoing reach and control of Gomez, to again allow an effort to judicially overturn or narrow Gomez. So the current status quo is not perpetual in its reach.
Should such a situation never again arise, Gomez stands as controlling law. The legislature is constrained by Minnesota's Constitution, to lack power to alone change judicial precedent over what is Constitutional, or not. It can legislate against Gomez, to present the issue of a newer later Court reviewing Gomez, but ultimately the Court holds final decision.
Presumably readers will perceive that the original post was largely in jest, and that the actual power of the vote will set the future, with Ellison having current discretionary powers of the AG office (as a part of the executive branch) as to how matters under Ellison's watch are handled.
Simply put, there is no requirement under Minnesota's Constitution compelling an AG to further contest a correct District Court ruling on Constitutional law. The current AG holding office when a District Court ruling issues has the discretionary authority to deem the ruling correct law, in which case there is no burden for him to do anything against correct law as he or she sees it.
Hence, when the Strib report states, " Republican candidates Jim Schultz and Doug Wardlow say Ellison and his office are bound by duty to appeal the case, which must happen within 60 days of the ruling," they are wrong. They misstate the correct balance between the three branches, in conjuring up a constraint against the executive branch's conduct and duty.
FURTHER: In headlining, saying Walz was a defendant and he prevailed, judgment was for Plaintiffs, so what is the headline saying? Walz, as a policy judgment stands disinclined to trust the legislature's judgment, and the Court's decision frees him from any person filing a mandamus action aimed at attaining a judicial order that he must enforce certain laws. Having a judgment that such laws are Unconstitutional frees him from any such mandamus action having merit. Hence, he prevails in that sense, even with judgment being for Plaintiffs. A part of the judgment was that a statutory duty of abortion providers to provide certain data to the executive branch was upheld, with conditions. Again, Walz and likely Ellison when finally resolving his thinking, might choose to contest on appeal some part of that part of the judgment. Or their decision might be to contest nothing.