LINDELL v. SIMON (2026)

ORDER

Petitioner Michael J. Lindell, a candidate in the August 11, 2026 Republican primary for governor of Minnesota, has 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 pertains to Lindell's request for a discretionary recount under Minn. Stat. § 204C.35.

On August 18, 2026, the Canvassing Board certified Lisa Demuth as the winning candidate of the Republican primary for governor. Lindell received the second-most votes among the other Republican gubernatorial candidates. Lindell's section 204B.44 petition alleges that he timely requested a discretionary recount under Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 2, but that on August 24, 2026, the deadline to seek such a recount, Lindell was told and became aware that the manner in which the Secretary of State's office would conduct the recount was inconsistent with Lindell's understanding of what Minnesota law requires. In response, Lindell declined to file the payment of a bond, cash, or surety to cover the expense of the recount (estimated at $825,021.93) that the Secretary of State's office notified him was due by the same August 24 deadline; Lindell instead sent documentation to the Secretary of State to reflect wire transfer readiness, and he filed this section 204B.44 petition.

As a threshold matter, respondents argue that Lindell's petition should be dismissed as moot and barred by laches. We decline to do so. Although “[w]e dismiss an issue or claim ․ as moot when a decision on the merits is no longer necessary or an award of effective relief is no longer possible,” “mootness is not a mechanical rule” but “a flexible discretionary doctrine.” Snell v. Walz, 985 N.W.2d 277, 283–84 (Minn. 2023) (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). This case is distinct from Benda for Common-Sense v. Anderson, 27 N.W.3d 155, 159–60 (Minn. 2025), where we dismissed a section 204B.44 claim pertaining to the 2022 election as moot because “[t]he 2022 general election is over,” and “[n]othing we order can change the voting machines used two election cycles ago.” Id. at 159. Here, in contrast, the recount statute permits a means of challenging the primary results, the time period under which that recount could be taking place is still currently underway, and section 204B.44 permits an individual to bring a petition to correct “alleged wrongful acts which have occurred.” We thus conclude that for purposes of this section 204B.44 petition, Lindell's claim is not moot. And “laches is a discretionary, equitable concept, and in this case we choose to address petitioners’ claim on the merits.” Breza v. Kiffmeyer, 723 N.W.2d 633, 635 (Minn. 2006).

On the merits of Lindell's section 204B.44 petition, however, we conclude that respondents are not committing any wrongful act, omission, or error by following—as the Secretary of State proposes—the procedures set forth in Minnesota Rules chapter 8235 and the Secretary of State Contingent Plan for Discretionary Recount approved by the Canvassing Board on August 18, 2026.

Lindell argues that he is entitled to a full recount for both the Democratic and Republican primary races for governor “to ensure that there are no anomalies in the ballots, whether the votes cast are for the Democratic or Republican primaries,” and that this recount must include “the recording of votes for every candidate.” But Lindell's focus on alleged anomalies confuses the purpose of a manual recount with an election contest. As we observed in Coleman v. Ritchie, a manual “recount is intended to ensure that the votes cast in the election were accurately counted,” while, “[i]n contrast to the limited scope of an administrative recount, an election contest under chapter 209 ‘may be brought over an irregularity in the conduct of an election or canvass of votes, over the question of who received the largest number of votes legally cast, ․ or on the grounds of deliberate, serious, and material violations of the Minnesota Election Law.’ ” Coleman v. Ritchie, 762 N.W.2d 218, 225–26 (Minn. 2009) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 209.02, subd. 1). Here, Lindell, as “[a] losing candidate whose name was on the ballot for nomination” in the primary for the Republican candidate for governor, in seeking a discretionary recount, is limited to a recount as to that election.² See Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 2(a).

The recount statute also requires, as both parties highlight, that “[a] recount conducted as provided in this section is limited in scope to the determination of the number of votes validly cast for the office or question to be recounted.” Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 3. Critically, however, it is the Secretary of State who, by statute, is specifically charged with adopting rules “establishing uniform recount procedures” that “[a]ll recounts provided for by section[ ] 204C.35” must be conducted under. Minn. Stat. § 204C.361(a). And the Secretary of State's methodology—set forth in Minn. R. ch. 8235 and the Secretary of State Contingent Plan for Discretionary Recount approved by the Canvassing Board on August 18, 2026—does determine the number of votes validly cast for the office being recounted. The specific rules governing the counting and challenging of ballots, see Minn. R. 8235.0800, in conjunction with the Contingent Plan, provide that here, the ballots would be separated by major political parties and then, the ballots for the Republican candidates for governor would be separated into three piles: one for candidate A, one for candidate B, and one for all other ballots. Minn. R. 8235.0800, subp. 2; Contingent Plan ¶¶ 7–8. Here, candidates A and B would be Lindell and Demuth. “During the sorting, a candidate or candidate's representative may challenge the ballot if he or she disagrees with the recount official's determination of for whom the ballot should be counted and whether there are identifying marks on the ballot.” Minn. R. 8235.0800, subp. 2 (emphasis added); see also Contingent Plan ¶¶ 8–9. In other words, after all votes are sorted and counted, Lindell would know whether he is the winner over Demuth. And all ballots, in all piles, would be counted and subject to challenge. “Once ballots have been sorted, the recount officials must count the piles using the stacking method described in Minnesota Statutes, section 204C.21.” Minn. R. 8235.0800, subp. 3 (emphasis added); see also Contingent Plan ¶ 10.

Because the Secretary of State's adherence to the Contingent Plan and recount procedures under Minn. R. ch. 8235 would provide a “determination of the number of votes validly cast for the office ․ to be recounted,” see Minn. Stat. § 204C.35, subd. 3— here the Republican gubernatorial primary—Lindell's section 204B.44 claim fails on the merits.

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

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lindell's 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.   We note that Lindell and his running mate for lieutenant governor, Phillip Parrish, have also filed a notice of election contest. Parrish, et al. v. Demuth, et al., No. 62-CV-26-5975 (Ramsey Cnty. Dist. Ct.). That election contest is not before us, and we take no position on it.

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.