PARRISH v. SIMON (2026)

ORDER

Petitioner Phillip C. Parrish, candidate for lieutenant governor of Minnesota, filed a petition pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 (Supp. 2025),¹ against respondents Steve Simon, in his official capacity as Minnesota Secretary of State, and the State Canvassing Board. The petition was submitted on August 17, 2026, less than 24 hours before the State Canvassing Board was scheduled to canvass the August 11, 2026 primary-election results. It asks us to order that the State Canvassing Board take certain action before the August 11, 2026 primary-election results are certified.

The petition alleges that an Anoka County Commissioner, on or about August 10–11, 2026, publicly stated that the voting system used in Anoka County is uncertified. The petition asserts that in this same statement, the Commissioner contended that adding modems to the voting systems caused them to become uncertified. The petition further alleges that the same may apply to approximately two-thirds of Minnesota counties. The petition did not include any affidavits or supporting documents.

On the basis of these alleged statements by an Anoka County Commissioner, the petition alleges that “[t]he Secretary of State and county election officials charged with duties concerning the August 11, 2026 primary” have committed “omission[s] and potential wrongful act[s].” Those omissions and potential wrongful acts include failing to ensure that voting systems used in the primary were within the configuration that was tested and certified, and failing to produce to the State Canvassing Board documentation resolving the certification issue identified by the Anoka County Commissioner. The petition requests that this court, among other things, order that paper ballots be counted by hand in any county where the certification status remains “unresolved” or where documented errors have occurred before the primary results are certified.

We ordered respondents to file a response to the petition. Any response was required to address several issues, including laches. The court also permitted Parrish to file a memorandum addressing these issues, but he did not file a memorandum. In response to the petition, respondents argue, in part, that the petition should be dismissed because it is barred by laches.

“Laches is an equitable doctrine applied to prevent one who has not been diligent in asserting a known right from recovering at the expense of one who has been prejudiced by the delay.” Winters v. Kiffmeyer, 650 N.W.2d 167, 169 (Minn. 2002) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). In Kistner v. Simon, No. A20-1486, Order at 1, 5 (Minn. filed Dec. 4, 2020), we dismissed a section 204B.44 petition seeking to temporarily stop the State Canvassing Board from certifying the results of the 2020 general election and require a full hand recount of all federal and state offices on the ballot for that election. Two claims in that petition involved challenges to a consent decree issued by a district court in the summer of 2020 suspending the witness requirement for absentee and mail ballots for the 2020 general election. Id. at 2–3. The court concluded that those claims were barred by laches. Id. at 3–4. We conclude that, like in Kistner, laches bars Parrish's petition.

“The first step in a laches analysis is to determine if petitioner unreasonably delayed asserting a known right.” Monaghen v. Simon, 888 N.W.2d 324, 329 (Minn. 2016). A petitioner bringing a section 204B.44 petition must act expeditiously “because the time constraints associated with elections demand diligence in asserting known rights.” Kistner, Order at 3; see also Trooien v. Simon, 918 N.W.2d 560, 561 (Minn. 2018) (“The orderly administration of elections does not wait for convenience.”).

The petition's claims are based on allegations that uncertified voting systems with modems were used in the August 11, 2026 primary. The record before us demonstrates that Parrish was aware of claims that uncertified voting systems with modems were being used in Minnesota elections more than nine months before he filed his petition. On November 13, 2025, Parrish made a post on his lieutenant governor website about our decision in Benda For Common-sense v. Anderson, 27 N.W.3d 155, 156–57 (Minn. 2025), where we held that a section 204B.44 claim originally brought in district court seeking to restrain a county from using embedded modems in its voting system during the 2022 general election was moot.² In describing Benda, Parrish stated that “[n]o ruling was made on the merits of wireless modems or uncertified equipment.” He also warned that section 204B.44 “is still a live weapon—if used early” and that a person could stop the use of voting machines with wireless modems if a case was filed “in March or April of 2026” using the same evidence that was used in Benda.

In another post on that same website, Parrish said that he personally observed the statutorily required public testing of the voting system that Rice County would use in the 2026 primary. In a July 21, 2026 post, Parrish identified the specific voting equipment that Rice County would be using for the primary and said that one machine displayed bars indicating it had a modem. After seeing that a voting system with a modem would be used in the 2026 primary, Parrish waited 27 days to file his petition challenging the use of voting systems with modems during the 2026 primary.

A nine-month delay in filing the petition is an unreasonable delay. See Kistner, Order at 3–4 (concluding that claims seeking to stop State Canvassing Board certification of November 2020 general election and require hand recount of all races were barred by laches when publicly available information put petitioners on notice of claims more than three months before petition was filed). But even if July 21, 2026, is the relevant date, Parrish did not challenge the use of any voting system with a modem before the primary election and instead waited 27 days to file his petition. We have found a similar delay to be unreasonable. See, e.g., Holden v. Simon, 38 N.W.3d 375, 376 (Minn. 2026) (dismissing section 204B.44 petition based on laches when there was a 25-day delay in filing); Trooien, 918 N.W.2d at 561 (dismissing section 204B.44 petition based on laches when there was a 27-day delay in filing); Martin v. Simon, No. A16-1436, Order at 6 (Minn. filed Sep. 12, 2016) (dismissing a section 204B.44 petition based on laches when there was a two-week delay in filing); Larkey v. Ritchie, No. A12-1064, Order at 2–3 (Minn. filed June 28, 2012) (dismissing section 204B.44 petition when there was a 20-day delay in filing); see also Kieffer v. Governing Body of the Mun. Rosemount, MN, 978 N.W.2d 442, 444 (Minn. 2022) (order) (observing during a discussion of laches that even if using the three-week delay petitioners advocated for, that would be “longer than other delays we have found to be unreasonable”).

In addition to unreasonable delay, we must assess whether that delay “result[s] in prejudice to others, as would make it inequitable to grant the relief.” Fetsch v. Holm, 236 Minn. 158, 52 N.W.2d 113, 115 (1952). The prejudice analysis considers the impact on “election officials, other candidates, and the Minnesota electorate in general.” Clark v. Pawlenty, 755 N.W.2d 293, 301 (Minn. 2008).

In Kistner, we concluded there was prejudice from petitioners’ delay in waiting until after the election and one day before the State Canvassing Board was scheduled to meet to bring some of their claims. Order at 4. We determined that petitioners’ “proposed recount of the entirety of the 2020 general election results would cast an unacceptable degree of uncertainty over the election,” and conducting a “full recount, regardless of the vote difference between candidates”—which was inconsistent with the statutory provisions for recounts—“would impose unacceptable burdens on voters and election officials alike.” Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 1(b) (2018) (mandating a publicly funded recount after a general election only with certain margins of difference)).

The same prejudice that existed in Kistner exists in this case. Despite his knowledge well before the primary election that modems would be attached to the voting machines, Parrish also waited to bring his petition until after the election had occurred and one day before the State Canvassing Board was scheduled to meet to canvass the August 11, 2026 primary results. Parrish has also proposed a hand recount of the primary ballots cast, regardless of the vote totals of candidates, which is inconsistent with statutory provisions for recounts. See Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 1(a) (allowing a candidate to request a publicly funded recount of the primary only with certain margins of difference). This creates an unacceptable degree of uncertainty over the results of the primary election and would impose unacceptable burdens on voters, candidates who received notices of nomination and are campaigning for the general election, and election officials who would need to conduct and pay for those recounts.

In addition, Parrish has not limited his recount request to the primary race in which he was a candidate; rather, he seeks a hand recount of all races in the primary. Conducting a hand recount of ballots in so many races, even if they involve only two-thirds of Minnesota counties, jeopardizes the timely start of absentee voting for the November 2026 general election, which begins on September 18, 2026. See Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.06, subd. 3(a)(1) (requiring absentee ballots to be made available 46 days before a general election), 204D.03, subd. 2 (“The state general election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in each even-numbered year.”). County auditors would not know all the names to place on the general election ballots until all the recounts were completed, see Minn. Stat. § 204D.12 (requiring a county auditor to “place on the appropriate state general election ballot the name of every candidate ․ whose nomination at the state primary has been certified by the appropriate canvassing board,” along with other candidates), and thus the preparation, testing, and printing of those ballots would be substantially delayed.

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Parrish's petition is dismissed.

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.   Respondents cited Parrish's statements on his lieutenant governor website when arguing that the petition is barred by laches.

Natalie E. Hudson, Chief Justice

MOORE, III, PROCACCINI, and GAÏTAS, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter. BLATZ, Acting Justice, appointed pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 2, and Minn. Stat. § 2.724, subds. 2–3.