MINNESOTA VOTERS ALLIANCE v. County of Anoka, et al., Respondents. (2026)

ORDER

Petitioners Minnesota Voters Alliance, Kevin Peterson, and Paul Kozlak filed a petition on August 5, 2026, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (Supp. 2025),¹ relating to respondents’ alleged violations of Minn. Stat. § 203B.121 (Supp. 2025), which petitioners refer to as the “ballot board statute.” Petitioners generally allege that respondents have failed to comply with the ballot board statute when establishing their ballot boards for the 2026 general election. Petitioners’ primary argument is that, for the governing body of a county or municipality to validly establish a ballot board by ordinance or resolution, the county or municipality must also appoint election judges by ordinance or resolution. Petitioners also make other specific arguments directed at the individual respondents, particularly the City of Plymouth and the current Plymouth City Clerk. And Petitioners argue that, in the interests of a broader ruling going forward, this court should hold that field preemption prevents local governments from exercising authority over the establishment of ballot boards.

The ballot board statute states, in relevant part:

The governing body of each county, municipality, and school district with responsibility to accept and reject absentee ballots or to administer early voting must, by ordinance or resolution, establish a ballot board. The board must consist of a sufficient number of election judges appointed as provided in sections 204B.19 to 204B.22. The board may include deputy county auditors or deputy city clerks who have received training in the processing and counting of absentee ballots. Each member of the ballot board must be provided adequate training on the processing and counting of absentee ballots, including but not limited to instruction on accepting and rejecting absentee ballots, storage of absentee ballots, timelines and deadlines, the role of the ballot board, procedures for opening absentee ballot envelopes, procedures for counting absentee ballots, and procedures for reporting absentee ballot totals.

Minn. Stat. § 203B.121, subd. 1(a) (emphasis added).

As to respondents County of Anoka, et al., and County of Hennepin, et al., petitioners allege that both counties failed to establish ballot boards because neither passed a resolution appointing any members to their ballot board. The Anoka County Board of Commissioners passed Resolution #2022-102 (Anoka Resolution) in 2022. The Anoka Resolution states that it is “establishing the Anoka County absentee ballot board” (capitalization omitted) with the proclamation that Anoka County “by and through its Board of Commissioners, does hereby establish an Absentee Ballot Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 203B.121.” The Anoka Resolution does not appoint individual members by name to the ballot board. It provides that “party balanced election judges will be utilized to perform all duties where their participation is required by statute.”

Hennepin County passed two resolutions related to its ballot board in 2014 and 2022. The 2014 Resolution states, in relevant part, “that the Hennepin County Board establishes the Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board for the purpose of processing and counting of absentee ballots.” The 2022 Resolution refers to the 2014 resolution as having “established” the ballot board in Hennepin County eight years earlier. The 2022 Resolution “re-authorizes the establishment of the Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board for the purpose of receiving and processing ․ absentee ballots” pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 203B.121. The 2022 Resolution states that the “Hennepin County Board authorizes the Hennepin County Auditor or the County Auditor's designee to appoint to the Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board election judges and deputy county auditors in a manner consistent with Minnesota law.” The 2022 Resolution does not appoint any members by name to the ballot board.

Regarding respondents City of Plymouth, et al., petitioners also allege that Plymouth has violated the ballot board statute by allowing the current Plymouth City Clerk to serve on the ballot board and by having an unlawful composition of individuals on the board. The Plymouth City Council passed Resolution 2026-153 (Plymouth Resolution) on June 23, 2026. It states, in relevant part, that “the attached list of individuals are appointed to serve as election judges and absentee ballot board election judges for the 2026 elections.” It further states that “the City Clerk is authorized to appoint additional election judges and absentee ballot board judges as deemed necessary within 25 days prior to both elections without further notice.” The Plymouth Resolution includes an attached list of names, which petitioners assert includes 365 people. The current Plymouth City Clerk appears on that list. Two individuals who work as deputy city clerks or office support specialists are also on that list.

As a threshold matter, Hennepin County is the only respondent to argue that the petition should be dismissed as barred by laches. We decline to do so. “[L]aches is a discretionary, equitable concept ․.” Breza v. Kiffmeyer, 723 N.W.2d 633, 635 (Minn. 2006). Here, we choose to address petitioners’ claims on the merits. See, e.g., id. (declining to consider laches in a section 204B.44 petition and instead addressing the merits of petitioner's claim); Lindell v. Simon, No. A26-1510, Order at 3, ––– N.W.3d ––––, ––––, 2026 WL 2654398 (Minn. filed Aug. 29, 2026) (same).

We turn then to the merits of the petition. As to petitioners’ primary argument, we conclude that the plain language of Minn. Stat. § 203B.121, subd. 1(a), does not require the governing body of a county, municipality, or school board to appoint members to its ballot board by resolution or ordinance. Petitioners’ argument asks us to read requirements into the statute that do not exist. The first sentence of subdivision 1(a) requires the governing body of a county, municipality, or school board to do one thing by ordinance or resolution—“establish a ballot board.” Minn. Stat. § 203B.121, subd. 1(a). The only instance when subdivision 1(a) uses the word “appoint” or any of its variations is in its second sentence, which states: “The board must consist of a sufficient number of election judges appointed as provided in sections 204B.19 to 204B.22.” Minn. Stat. § 203B.121, subd. 1(a). This language cannot reasonably be read to include a requirement that establishment of the board must include appointment of the board's members.² We therefore reject petitioners’ argument that Plymouth, Anoka County, and Hennepin County have violated the ballot board statute on that basis.

Petitioners also raise two challenges specific to the City of Plymouth's ballot board composition. First, they argue that the current Plymouth City Clerk is not an eligible ballot board member because only election judges or deputy city clerks can be members. We disagree. Plymouth acknowledges that the current Plymouth City Clerk is included on the list of ballot board members in the Plymouth Resolution. The ballot board statute addresses who may be on the ballot board. Minn. Stat. § 203B.121, subd. 1(a) (“The board must consist of a sufficient number of election judges ․ The board may include deputy county auditors or deputy city clerks ․”). The statute is silent regarding whether a “city clerk” may serve on the ballot board. The plain language of the statute does not preclude a city clerk from being a ballot board member on the sole basis that she is the city clerk. If, for example, the current Plymouth City Clerk is an election judge, then she may serve as a ballot board member as an election judge so long as she is not otherwise barred by law from serving as a ballot board member. See Minn. Stat. § 204B.19, subds. 1–2 (addressing general qualifications for an election judge and who cannot be an election judge).

Second, petitioners argue that the inclusion of two “deputies” on the allegedly three-person board is unlawful because the board must have two election judges who are balanced by party affiliation and chosen from party lists furnished each election year. See Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.121, subd. 2(a) (stating that “[e]lection judges performing the duties in this section must be of different major political parties”), 204B.21, subds. 1–2 (establishing a process for appointing election judges that starts with each major political party providing a list of people willing to be election judges). If the board has only three members, two of whom are deputy city clerks, petitioners claim that it cannot have enough election judges. But the Plymouth Resolution includes a list of hundreds of individuals, not merely three, appointed to the ballot board for the 2026 election. Moreover, Plymouth has explained that this list includes individuals who are on the election judge lists provided by the major political parties and have expressed interest in serving as election judges for the city. For these reasons, we are not persuaded by petitioners’ argument that there are not enough election judges on the City of Plymouth's ballot board.

Finally, petitioners ask us to apply the doctrine of field preemption to limit local governments’ authority over ballot boards. They argue that “this case presents the opportunity to ensure proper application of the statute by jurisdictions across the State going forward through a finding of field preemption, and the Court should take it.” Petitioners also state that “[a]ll the hallmarks of field preemption are here, and such a finding would promote judicial efficiency by preventing piecemeal litigation over all the various ways local governments can find to misapply this statute.” We recently stated that “[s]ection 204B.44 may be used only as a procedural mechanism to bring ‘a challenge in the context of a single specific election, rather than a challenge to election policies generally.’ ” Benda for Common-Sense v. Anderson, 27 N.W.3d 155, 159–60 (Minn. 2025) (emphasis in original) (quoting Minn. Voters All. v. Simon, 885 N.W.2d 660, 665 (Minn. 2016)). Petitioners’ arguments relate broadly to election policy and future elections and are not sufficiently tied to an alleged error in a single specific election. We decline to reach the merits of petitioners’ request regarding field preemption because it is beyond the scope of a section 204B.44 petition.³

Based upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the current City Clerk for the City of Plymouth, who is a named respondent in this case, may serve on Plymouth's ballot board so long as she is an election judge and is otherwise authorized by law to be on the ballot board.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remainder of petitioners’ section 204B.44 petition is denied.

FOOTNOTES

1.   All statutory citations in this order are to the statutes currently in effect at the time of this order. To the extent a statute has been amended since the most recent printed version of Minnesota Statutes in 2024, a reference has been included the first time that statute is cited.

2.   There are a number of examples in other contexts where the Legislature has required the establishment of a body without simultaneously requiring appointment of its members by name. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 3.8855, subd. 1 (establishing the Tax Expenditure Review Commission); Minn. Stat. § 4.076, subd. 2 (establishing the Advisory Council on Traffic Safety).

3.   Although we do not address the merits of the field preemption argument, we observe that petitioners’ argument that the ballot board statute forecloses the exercise of local authority appears to be contrary to the plain language of the statute. Minnesota Statutes § 203B.121 expressly requires the exercise of local authority under certain circumstances. Minn. Stat. § 203B.121, subd. 1(a) (requiring the exercise of local authority by stating that “[t]he governing body of each county, municipality, and school district with responsibility to accept and reject absentee ballots or to administer early voting must, by ordinance or resolution, establish a ballot board”).

Natalie E. Hudson, Chief Justice

THISSEN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.