ISSUES

Ensuring the integrity of our elections is essential to a functioning republic. From the security of voting systems to the transparency of the vote-counting process, multiple factors contribute to a fair, honest, and secure election. The following list highlights some of the key issues and challenges facing Minnesota today, illustrating the urgent need for better safeguards and oversight.

I have heard many candidates talk about what they plan to do after they take office should they win their elections. What I haven't heard from any of them is how they plan to win their election in 2026 when the deck is stacked against them.

I will explain both the #1 election integrity issue facing Minnesota today AND a solution to mitigate it. And I will add that this is THE ONLY way to mitigate it and win in 2026. I offer you the harsh truth over comfortable lies.

Many of the issues we face concerning election integrity involve things like

• 46 day election cycle
• A lack of proof of citizenship
• Voter vouching (whoever thought that was a good idea?)

The truth is that NONE of these things can even be addressed without a republican trifecta victory in November. And we aren't going to win a trifecta without mitigating the issue I am speaking of.

Absentee Ballot Board

The #1 threat to Minnesota elections right now IS the Absentee Ballot Board (ABB), hand's down. It is an aparatus setup with one purpose: take absentee ballots out of the hands of party-balanced election judges and moving them into county control to be handled by employees who are not required to be party-balanced. You can see this emphasized in the following statute (203B.23 - 2008).

2008

Created in 2008, the Absentee Ballot Board (203B.23) removed UOCAVA (military and overseas) absentee ballots from local precinct polling stations and election judges, and centralized them into county control and staff.

Here is the language of that 2008 legislation.

2010

Expanded in 2010 by, then Rep., Steve Simon and colleagues, the ABB would take all absentee ballots statewide and move them also into county control under the handling of "staff trained as election judges", but again, not required to be party balance.

Here is the language of that 2010 legislation.

Even thought the above legislation reads that the board "must consist of" election judges, the MN Supreme Court has rule (MN Voters Alliance v. Ramsey County, Olmstead County, and Duluth - 2022) that those election judges are only required for signature verification because some legislation refers specifically to election judges handling that duty.

2013

In 2013, MN Stat. 203B.121 was further amended to remove the language regarding "staff trained as election judges" and replace it with a new terms of "Deputy County Auditor" and "Deputy City Clerk". And of course these individuals are no longer required to be county staff, but could be anybody. I have spoken with election judges in Hennepin County, who have told me that their tasks were minimal and did not involve ballot handling while dozens upon dozens of temporary workers were hired to handle all ballot processing.

Here is the language of that 2013 legislation.

Note that the above language concerning "deputy county auditors/city clerks" has removed any referrence to being "trained as election judges". We must remember that any ballot handled by anyone other than party-balanced judges is the epitome of theft and is by definition a compromised election. But this is how the current Secretary of State and his collegues in certain key counties are playing things.

We must also note that there is no statute whatsoever that prevents the use of 100% election judges from handling 100% of ballots. It is by pure liberty that county officials chose to not use party-balanced election judges and favors the use of deputy staff. One must ask themselves why that is.

There are dozens of nuances that we could discuss on this issue, but the fact remains that the current Secretary of State promotes the use of deputy auditors while minimizing the use of party-balanced election judges. At no time does he ever suggest maximizing the use of election judges at all. His Absentee Voting Administration Guide is evidence of this and is one of the primary guides that counties use to govern elections.

Minnesota’s absentee ballot process under § 203B.121 allows county auditors and their hand-picked, non-party-balanced deputies to open, examine, accept or reject, duplicate, store, transport, and tabulate ballots with virtually no bipartisan oversight. Party-balanced election judges, whose explicit purpose is to provide mutual checks against fraud and abuse, are largely sidelined to occasional signature verification only when an ID number does not match. This structure defeats the core tenet of election integrity: that the two major parties must watch each other when ballots are being physically handled.

By concentrating control in unelected staff accountable only to the auditor, the system creates an obvious vulnerability that invites manipulation while maintaining the appearance of proper procedure. True election security demands restoring full bipartisan oversight at every step, not diluting it for administrative convenience.

More to come...