March 26, 2026 · Elections · 10,642 words · 16 speakers · 388 segments
Good afternoon, everyone. It is Thursday, March 26th at 3:10pm which just grieves me so much. I call this meeting of the Senate Elections Committee to order. And we do have a quorum. I want to welcome the audience to the Minnesota Senate Elections Committee. We appreciate your interest and participation in the legislative process process to ensure everyone can hear and understand and view today's proceedings. We ask for your cooperation in maintaining decorum and civility throughout the hearing for the safety, security and comfort of all attendees. Please note the following guidelines. As the acting chair of the Elections Committee, my job is to make sure our committee runs smoothly and efficiently and to ensure we are able to complete our business each time we meet. My job is also to establish expectations around conduct during our hearing as follows. Signs and placards are not permitted in the hearing room. Verbal outbursts, shouting or disruptive behavior will not be tolerated. Applause or other audible demonstrations are not allowed. For safety reasons, everyone must be seated. No standing, sitting or pacing in walkways or aisles will be allowed, nor standing or obstructing proceedings at your seat. However, if you require a reasonable accommodation, please do speak with our Sergeant staff for assistance with your needs. The Sergeant at arms are here to ensure everyone's comfort and safety. Testifiers have signed up in advance and have been provided with time limit for their testimony. Please adhere to these limits so that all of our testifiers have the opportunity to share their thoughts and so that we can keep our meeting on time. If time runs out, I will ask you to wrap up your remarks before and after the committee. Please talk to a sergeant. If you want to talk to a senator or our staff rather than approaching the committee table, the sergeant will let us know. If these guidelines are not followed. I will provide a warning and ask that decorum be restored after that. Ongoing failure to comply may result in removal from the hearing room. Our goal is to conduct these proceedings efficiently while ensuring everyone the opportunity to observe and participate appropriately and to maintain decorum. And lastly, as with our other hearings, except for authors amendments, we will have roll calls for all votes. Since we have members participating remotely. We. We have two items on our agenda today, both of which are mine. So I guess I will go assume the table.
It.
Senator Westland, when you are ready. Senate file 4223 is before us. Senator Westland. All right.
Let me get settled in here. I have a lot of papers.
All right.
Madam Chair and members, this is the Elections policy omnibus bill. Ms. Stengel did a great job walking through this bill on Tuesday, Tuesday, Tuesday and So today we will be taking up this bill. We have had a lot of, I would say, very productive discussions during the course of this committee this year. I think we have put together a bill that is bipartisan, that reflects good policies to improve our elections in the state of Minnesota. And I guess at this point, Madam Chair, we should probably just take care of the amendments and get that out of the way. I think we have an A5amendment.
Senator Westland, do we want to do testimony before amendments, or would you like to do amendments first?
I would like to do the amendment first, please. Okay. Senator Westland, the DE amendment is the Elections Omnibus Policy Bill. There are a couple of other smaller amendments that we will take to put this in the. In the shape that we want it. I know some of our members have amendments for this as well, so I would like to adopt the A5amendment.
Senator Wesley moves the A5amendment. Members, any questions or discussion on the A5amendment? Seeing none, Ms. Stankiewicz will take the roll on the A5amendment.
Senator westland. Aye. Senator koran. Senator carlson.
Aye.
Senator barr? Senator bolden. Aye. Senator swadzinski.
Yep.
Senator limmer. Senator lucero.
No.
Senator marty. Senator marty. Senator matthews. Senator port.
Aye.
Senator marty.
There being eight eyes and two nays, the motion does prevail and the DE amendment is adopted. Senator Westland.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At this point I'd like to. We have a number of testifiers and then following that, I assume we will be looking at adopting any further amendments.
Very good. We will move to testimony. The first person on the list is Nicole Freeman. After that will be Elizabeth Schemick. Miss Freeman, welcome to the committee. Please introduce yourself and begin when you are ready.
Hello. Nicole Freeman from the office of the Secretary of State. Thank you so much to the committee and to Acting Chair Westland for including the provisions of Senate File 4006 in the committee's policy omnibus. The provisions included make practical updates to improve election administration while also maintaining voter access. The included provisions allow cities flexibility if they administer absentee voting, to do so for the full 46 days or just the final 18 days ahead of an election. This will help manage costs for the cities while also preserving access across the state for voters. It also standardizes the use of the statewide voter registration system for absentee voting across elections and improves consistency and coordination across elections by doing so. The bill also includes several clarifications and technical fixes like one where related to color ballots, which haven't existed since before I was born. So I appreciate that. It also includes updates to the early voting procedures, which will begin this year, removes outdated provisions and modernizes how annotated election law volumes are distributed to clerks across the state. Finally, it strengthens election security by repealing outdated authority for office to license the statewide voter registration system to other entities. Additionally, I wanted to offer appreciation for the inclusion of clarification language related to how candidate affidavits that have previously been filed years in years past should be handled and how that address data for those candidates should be handled. We believe that the language does protect candidate addresses and also allows future candidates the choice of what information is publicly available. So I wanted to thank the committee again and staff for your work on this bill. And I know we'll be taking amendments later, but I just wanted to offer thanks to all the stakeholders for their work on the A14, which will come up soon too. Thanks so much.
Bye bye.
Thank you, Ms. Schimick. And after that will be Cap O'.
Rourke.
Ms. Shimek, welcome to the Committee. Please introduce yourself and begin Madam Chair,
Honorable members of the Committee, My name is Elizabeth Schemick and I'm Senior Legal Counsel for Campaign Finance with Campaign Legal center testifying in Support of Article 1 of the Elections Policy Omnibus Campaign Legal center is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. and dedicated to protecting and strengthening democracy through law at all levels of government. Senate File 4223 Article 1 includes important campaign finance updates regarding electioneering communications coordination and disclaimers drawn From Senate File 3886. Each addresses gaps in Minnesota's campaign finance laws that big election spenders may seek to exploit. First, the bill strengthens Minnesota's coordination statutes by ensuring that where court candidates and outside spenders coordinate on electioneering communications, such spending is properly understood as a coordinated expenditure subject to contribution limits and clear public disclosure. Because coordinated expenditures are indistinguishable from writing a check to a candidate, effective coordination laws are essential to prevent wealthy special interests from evading contribution limits. This bill would further protect Minnesota elections from corruption by strengthening those laws. Second, the bill modernizes Minnesota's on ad disclaimer rules for digital ads, clarifying that all digital political ads must have on ad disclaimers unless it is technologically infeasible to do so. Voters have a right to know who's spending big money to influence their vote, and this update will help to ensure that Minnesota voters have immediate and easy access to information regarding the spenders behind the election ads they see wherever those ads find them. In short, these changes provide important updates to Minnesota's campaign finance laws to help prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption in Minnesota elections and ensure that voters have the information they need to cast an informed ballot. Thank you all for your time and consideration.
Thank you for your testimony. Next will be Cap O'. Rourke. After that, Chip Tangen. Mr. O', Rourke, welcome to the committee. Please introduce yourself and proceed.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, committee members, Senator Westland, I am here on behalf of the Minnesota association of Small Cities. These are cities with populations under 5,000. We continue to have concerns about the portions that require economic statements of interest. We share those concerns with all our local government partners, particularly for our smallest cities. There are nearly 200 cities that have budgets of right around 200,000, which is mostly made up of employees. We do have concerns that this requiring this filing is going to potentially limit the number of people who are running for these offices. More importantly though, I would draw your attention and I think this is going to be partially resolved with the A14. This is the designation of whether or not municipalities will administer absentee voting ballots between 46 or 18 days. Currently in Minnesota law, cities can opt in to choose to administer absentee ballots and elections or they can be designated by their county. We have 31 cities under populations 5,000 who administer these absentee ballots. The vast majority of them are in two counties. Hennepin county and St. Louis county have taken it to designate virtually all of their cities to administer these elections. And so and it's becoming extremely difficult, especially now with the 46 day requirement with the A14. There is. We wanted to make sure that this was a choice that the Cities have the A14 does put into that they have to. Municipalities and counties must come to an agreement. We do have a question about what happens if they don't come to an agreement. If the default is 46 days or 18 days or if there's a coin flip or how that works out. So I think that's something that we continue to work. I think that the gist of this in the A4 team is probably there, but we just need to for our small cities, especially in St. Louis county and Henneman county that are having to administer these and staff these absentee things, we want to make sure that they have more control of this given that they have been mandated by their counties to administer these elections.
Thank you for your testimony. Last we will hear from Chip Tangan. Welcome to the committee. Please introduce yourself for the record and proceed.
Thank you.
My name is Chip Tangen and I appreciate the opportunity to testify. Your legislation contains A number of provisions to protect the safety of elected officials and candidates. As a third party activist and as an intended candidate for Secretary of State this year, as a party third and under a third party. It's nice to see you remembered us too. Article 2, section 17 removes the requirement for nominating petitions to disclose where candidates live. This will bring Minnesota into line with North Dakota and Iowa. To better inform the public, you can add. You add candidate websites and emails. Also a good move. Perhaps you'll inspire other states to follow your lead. This progressive move builds on language Senator Westland inserted a couple of years ago to prod the Secretary of State to transition away from antiquated legal sized petition forms to letter sized forms. I encourage the committee, however, to take the ultimate step in modernization transition to online nominating petitions. It makes sense for many reasons. Better security efficiency, accommodation of people with disabilities, and best of all, we can stop bothering people, bothering strangers at their homes. But the topic today is privacy. And I'd like you to consider the interests of people who sign our petitions. When we go door to door, people will see their neighbor's information. Why should somebody know if their neighbor. Neighbor signed our petition? And here's something unique to Minnesota. Unlike all of our neighboring states, Minnesota alone requires signers to fill in their year of birth. Trust me, that disclosure makes some people very uncomfortable. With a simple amendment, you could remove that requirement today. But I encourage you to be more thoughtful, scrap the paper forms entirely and implement an online petition system.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. That is the end of my list of testifiers. Is there anyone else with us who would like to testify? All right. Seeing none. Senator Westland, Madam Chair, before.
I think we are at the point now where we may be considering amendments. And folks will remember that when we did the walkthrough on Thursday. Lines 58.11 to 58.12, it says section one is effective. And while I do believe section one is quite effective, I think that this is an error that we need to remove. So I will make an. Or would like to make an oral Amendment to delete 58.11 and 58.12.
Senator Marty.
Senator Marty.
Madam Chair, I was hoping instead you would insert the word very before effective.
But
we'll.
We'll stick with the current oral amendment. Thank you, Senator Marty. Ms. Dangle, could you please state the oral amendment?
Thank you, Madam Chair. On page. On the A5amendment, page 58, delete section 20.
Any questions to the oral amendment members?
Okay.
Senator Westland, I'm.
I'M going to assume we can do this by a voice vote.
Don't.
Don't make me do a roll call on this.
That is probably safe. So we will move adoption of the oral amendment as stated by Ms. Stangle. All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
All those opposed say nay. The oral amendment is adapted. Senator Westland.
Madam Chair, I believe. There may be other amendments from members.
Very well.
Let's move to discussion and amendments members. Senator Corinne.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'd like to move the A7amendment to Senate file 4223.
Senator Corinne moves the A7amendment. Is that in our packets?
I don't believe so.
Okay. While it is being passed out, would you like to describe it, Senator Koran?
I would. This amendment has to do with the. If you look on page five, line 17, it's a deletion of new language. And what it is is it's around the limits of economic interest statement. The expansion to elected officials. It removes staff and appointed officials, counties and the cities. We've heard those concerned. This wouldn't eliminate it, but it would reduce it to just those who are elected. And I think yeah, that's it. So we'd remove it to those just those who are elected. And Madam Chair, appreciate a roll call and request or encourage a green vote.
Roll call requested. Roll call granted. Senator Westland.
Madam Chair and Senator Cran. I guess I haven't had a chance to look at this and I'm not sure I understand it that the language we've added is or political subdivision. You're proposing to remove that.
Senator Corinne.
Just looking to remove the staff and personnel to have it only include the. Just the elected officials as I understand it.
Senator westland, I.
I'm still confused. Madam Chair. I don't think that matches up to the language in the amendment. But
Senator Coran, I also am confused. The amendment I'm looking at line page 5, line 17. The new language added was or political subdivision. So I'm not making the connection of staff there. Could you maybe explain a bit more?
Maybe I need to take a moment and work with my staff and we'll work on a different one.
Can we withdraw this for now and
then, Madam Chair, we can withdraw the A7.
The A7 is being withdrawn other amendments members. Senator Port.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the A14.
Senator Port moves the A14, which I believe we do have. Senator Port.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This amendment is work product and conversations between cities, counties and the office of Secretary of State and looks to make the Flexibility Provided In Article 3, Section 1, workable for counties, municipalities and voters ahead of the 2026 state primary election. The first change clarifies that for future elections, the decision whether a municipality will be open for absentee voting in person 18 or 46 days before the election lies with the municipality. The second change removes the ability for a new city to opt into absentee voting two weeks later before the primary absentee period begins. And finally, this language inserted on page 58, clarifies that for the state primary in 2026 only agreement about how many days a city administers absentee needs to be agreed upon by the city and the county. Due to the timeline being tight between the potential bill passage and the beginning of the absentee voting period, counties and cities will work together to determine the opening days of an absentee location in the state primary. And I will just note, Madam Chair, that these conversations are ongoing, but this is some sort of compromise language that
is
helps to put those municipalities concerns, you know, have them be addressed in this bill and we'll continue these conversations moving forward.
Thank you, Senator Port. Senator Westland.
Madam Chair. And thank you, Senator Port. And I think Mr. O' Rourke mentioned this, that this has come about as the result of conversations with stakeholders. I do view this as a friendly amendment and encourage a yes vote.
Other questions or discussion on the A7amendment?
A14.
My apologies. The A14amendment. Okay. Seeing none. Ms. Stankepich will take the roll on the a14amendment.
Senator westland.
Aye.
Senator koran.
No.
Senator carlson? Senator carlson? Senator barr.
No for carlson.
Senator bolden. Yes. Senator swadzinski?
Yes.
Senator limmer? Senator lucero.
No.
Senator marty.
Yes.
Senator matthews. Senator port.
Yes.
There being six eyes and five nays, the motion prevails and the amendment is adopted. Senator Marty.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have the A11amendment.
Senator Marty. Move the A11. Senator Marty.
Thank you. I'm not sure. I assume it's in packets. I don't know how it. I see it here. This is one that came, I believe, in consultation with Mr. Sigurdson and the Campaign Finance Board on the disclaimer language. Again, instead of saying it has to be material posted on websites that is capable of being redistributed must include a disclaimer.
Well,
we don't have everything on it. You don't want to have every item on a candidate's website have to have a disclaimer. We take care of that elsewhere. It's just if you have a video or something or poster or brochure or Something that would be put in a way that could be easily redistributed would have to include a disclaimer. And we're doing that both in section 26 and also. Also for independent expenditures. On the next page,
Senator Wessler.
Madam Chair, That's a friendly amendment. I encourage a yes vote.
Any further discussion on the 8 11amendment? Seeing none, Ms. Stankemic will take the roll on the A11amendment.
Senator whistlin? Aye. Senator koran?
No.
Senator carlson?
Yes.
Senator barr?
Aye.
Senator bolden?
Aye.
Senator swatzinski?
Yes.
Senator limmer?
No.
Senator lucero?
No.
Senator marty?
Aye.
Senator matthews?
No.
Senator port?
Aye.
There being seven eyes and four nays, the motion prevails and the amendment is adopted. Other amendments? Members. Senator Cran.
Madam Chair, let's try the A7amendment again.
Senator Cran moves the A7amendment. Senator Coran.
So, Madam Chair and Senator Lakeland. So on 5.17, the removal of the political subdivision restores the language to the previous position and the previous. The first part of that is only applies to the employees, not the elected officials. The electeds are included in subsection or in section 3 of that, or starts on 5.20. And then on section. The removal of section 9 is only pertaining to staff and not electeds. So that restores it to what its previous position was. And removes the staff. Maybe council can. Can go after. Go at it.
Yes.
Senator Westland.
Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator, I'm still not quite following you. So. Yes, if we could phone a friend and have someone explain it.
If council can help explain it to us.
Very good. Ms. Dangle, can you help us out?
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. The amendment is amending the A5amendment on page five, line 17. So clause one of the bill, which is what is being amended, requires people who to apply to file a statement of economic interest within 60 days of accepting employment as a public official or local official in a metropolitan government unit or a political subdivision. So this is the provision that requires people accepting employment or being appointed as a political subdivision. This is the expansion that applies to employees or appointments to a political subdivision. So this is reverting the current law to. This is reverting to the current law on appointments or employees.
Senator Westland,
I don't view this a friendly amendment. I think that we were very intentional about to whom we were applying these requirements. And so I would be a vote, no vote, and I would ask for a roll call, although we are doing
roll calls on Senator Corinne.
Yeah, Madam Chair, I think trying to Respond with the municipalities as they've spoken, spoken again, testified again, trying to help them out. We didn't attempt to remove everybody from that requirement. Just the elected officials. Still encourage a green vote.
Any other discussion? Seeing none, Ms. Stankiewicz will take the roll on the A7amendment.
Senator Westland?
No.
Senator Coran?
Yes.
Senator Carlson?
No.
Senator Barr?
Aye.
Senator Bolden?
No.
Senator Swadzinski?
No.
Senator Limmer?
Yep.
Senator Lucero? Senator Marty. Senator Matthews.
Yes.
Senator Port?
No. There being five eyes and six nays, the motion does not prevail and the amendment is not adopted. Other amendments. Senator Matthews.
Go ahead. Senator Matthews, go first.
Senator Matthews.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll introduce the A9amendment.
Senator Matthews introduces the A9amendment. Do we have that in packets? We do not. It will be passed out. Senator Matthews.
Thank you, Madam Chair. This is making just a couple small changes over the disclaimer portion on ads that we've discussed in this committee. So this is narrowing the scope of the provision. It allows a disclaimer to be displayed on a webpage instead of being the only thing on the webpage. It's limiting the authority of campaign finance and administrative hearings so they can investigate complaints but not go hunting for violations. And makes the web page requirements more practical while maintaining the spirit of the bill. So request a roll call and a yes vote on the amendment.
We will take a roll call vote. Senator Westland.
Madam Chair and Senator. I guess I wish I would have had this ahead of time because it's hard for me to sort of try to digest this on the fly in the moment. So if I could have a minute to see if I can figure out what the language is doing. Talk amongst yourselves. I guess. Give me a. Madam Chair, Senator Westland, Senator Matthews. I guess one question I would have is. Have you discussed this with Mr. Sigurdson at all?
Senator Matthews,
Madam Chair and Senator Westland. I've not personally, I know that we had pretty a lot of conversation around this issue. So I don't know if anyone else on my side and the committee talked about this issue or not, but I have not myself know Senator Westland.
So.
Madam Chair and Senator, I guess what I'd like to do is. I would actually like to have a little more time to think about this. This will go to the floor at some point. I'd like to understand what it does. And I'm sorry, I just. I don't want to do anything without also talking to Mr. Sigurdson to see if this changes sort of the intentions of the campaign finance Board and some of the things they brought with us. I'm going to be a no today, but I actually would like to talk to you more about this and see. I don't want to vote for something without fully understanding the implications and having a chance to speak with Mr. Sigurdson about it, but I would actually be interested in continuing the conversation.
Madam Chair, Senator Lucero, I would like to see if Mr. Sigurdson could just come up. He's 20ft from the desk and perhaps he could give his input.
Mr. Sigurdson.
Madam Chair and Senator, I'm fine with that if he is able to look at this quickly and provide an opinion, but I think if he's not able to do that, I would like to give him the opportunity.
It is a bit on the fly and on the spot and he does not have the language yet probably. Thank you for joining us. Please do introduce yourself and provide your testimony or your thoughts.
Madam Chair, committee members, Jeff Sigurds of the Campaign Finance Public Disclosure Board. I haven't seen this before, so just one moment.
Of course.
Thank you.
It.
Senator Marty.
Madam chair, while Mr. Sigurds is looking at it, I'm engrossing the language in here. And it's basically would be saying that if I did not put a disclaimer on some communication because it was technologically infeasible and the board hears from somebody, that's that, why can't you do that? And the board comes to me and says, please demonstrate why it was technologically infeasible to do so. You're taking the board's ability to do that. And only if someone, some person files a complaint against, say I was the one who did it, only if that person would file a complaint against me for violating the section, then that person has to know what's technologically infeasible or what's feasible or not, and has to come to me, has to file a complaint against the person. Even if they're not sure they did, they're just saying this doesn't look right and the board shouldn't have to wait till there's. Till there's a complaint for violation of the section. It's simply, you're supposed to do this and if you're not doing it, explain why you couldn't do it. Because we do give them an out if it's not infeasible. So I just have a question. Why would want to put that step in there? Because it's either a question, if I say it's not realistically, it's technologically infeasible to do that. And I don't know the example of what this would be, but seems to me they just come to the person who did it and say, could you please explain why,
Mr. Sigartson?
Madam Chair, committee members, I understand on line nine, by removing only and going with prominently displays. That is more or less the requirement. Now the. If you link to a website that has the address of the committee, the full address of the committee, you know, the expectation is that's going to be obvious to the viewer at that point. But you could still have the header on the website, you know, that goes back to the remainder of the information on the website. That's pretty much the standard now. So that's where you would end up. You'd be back basically where we're at, which is now just linking to the website as opposed to saying that it has to be a page that only has the disclaimer. I'm not sure if you're asking for any opinion here, but I think that would be easier for committees to comply with prominently displays as opposed to only the second one. I think Senator Marty is correct. I will say realistically, the board doesn't have the staff or the resources to be looking at these communications. They are brought to us in the form of a complaint in almost all cases. I suppose it is possible that we would examine someone's communication to see if it met this criteria as part of some other investigation. But certainly we're not in a position to be reviewing these. You know, I guess go out looking for them is simply not where we're at. It's where people bring them to our attention that we're usually reacting to the situation. Hopefully that helps.
Madam Chair, Senator Westland, if I can just get a clarification then from Mr. Sigurdson. It sounds like you would be okay with the prominently displays, but the other one has questions. So I would propose we divide the amendment and take line 1.1 or 1.3 and separate that and do 1.4 to 1.6 is a second part of the amendment.
All right. Ms. Stengel, can you please describe the division of the amendment for us?
Thank you.
Madam Chair. The amendment is being divided. The division would be one portion would be line 1.3 and the other portion would be lines 1.4 to 1.6.
Madam Chair, I would just say to members I would support the change on 1.13 since Mr. Sigurdson has indicated that he would agree with that. And then I would be opposed to the second Half of the amendment.
Which part would you like to vote on first?
I think Senator Matthews makes that.
Senator. Apologies. Senator Matthews.
Madam Chair. I'm fine with voting on line 1.3 first.
Very good.
Any other discussion on line 1.3? Seeing none. Ms. Stankiewicz will take the roll.
Senator Westland?
Aye.
Senator Koran?
Aye.
Senator Carlson?
Aye.
Senator Barr?
Aye.
Senator Bolden? Aye. Senator Swadzinski?
Yep.
Senator Limmer? Senator Lucero?
Yes.
Senator Marty?
Yes.
Senator Matthews?
Yes.
Senator Port?
Yes.
There being 11 eyes and 0 nays, the motion prevails and the amendment is adopted. We will next move to the second part of this divided amendment, lines 1.4 through 1.6.
Madam Chair.
Senator Matthews.
Thank you. Madam Chair. I'd still ask for a yes vote on this part of the amendment. I think the description that we heard is that that's basically what the board's in position of is to be reactionary to what information is brought to them. Maybe we consider if we do complaint or question or something like that. But the language that's in the underlying delete all is pretty broad and opens up a lot more potentials that would be allowed under law. Maybe not right now, but could be something that the board then takes up down the road. So I would still appreciate some form of more limiting language like is reflected in this part of my A9amendment. Thank you.
Any other discussion or questions? Numbers on the second portion of this amendment? Seeing none. Mitch Stankiewicz will take the roll.
Senator Westlin?
No.
Senator Koran?
Yes.
Senator Carlson?
No.
Senator Barr?
Aye.
Senator Bolden?
No.
Senator Swatzinski?
No.
Senator Limmer?
Yes.
Senator Lucero?
Yes.
Senator Marty?
No.
Senator Matthews?
Yes.
Senator Port?
No.
There being five eyes and six nays, the motion does not prevail and the amendment is not adopted.
Senator Curran?
Thank you. Madam Chair, I would like to move the A6amendment.
Senator Cran moves the A6amendment while that is being passed out. Would you like to describe the A6amendment, please?
Senator Wessland, I have a bill for you. This amendment is a great bill and I thought we had. I thought we had great bipartisanship on this. The A6 is actually your bill. Senate pile 4143 as it relates to the prohibiting non government entities from completing and pre filling an absentee ballot application. And I was kind of shocked that it wasn't in the bill. And you know, there's a letter in your packet asking for the cities and counties and I think it would. Everybody's agreed that it's created great confusion all over the board. And so I would hope you would support it and encourage a green vote.
Senator Westland, Madam Chair and Senator Koran there. As we were going through all the bills that we've heard, I was trying to put together sort of a compact package. I agree with you. It's a good bill. And since you have taken the time to bring it back up, I. I view this as a friendly amendment and I encourage a yes vote on this.
Other discussion or questions on the A6amendment. Seeing none, Ms. Stankebich will take the roll.
Senator westland.
Aye.
Senator curran?
Yes.
Senator carlson.
Yes.
Senator barr?
Aye.
Senator bolden?
Aye.
Senator swadzinski? Senator limmer? Senator lucero? Senator lucero. Senator marty.
Sure.
Senator matthews? Senator port. No. Then senator lucero.
He's coming back.
Yeah.
It's up to you.
Yes or no?
I.
Yes.
He doesn't know. He just voted for.
He voted for outlawing guns.
There being ten eyes and one nay. The motion prevails and the amendment is adopted. Other amendments, Members?
Madam Chair, Senator Kran.
I have. This is my last one, so I'd like to move the A13amendment.
Senator Coran moves the A13amendment. It will be passed out to members. Senator Coran.
Yeah.
Madam Chair. And Senator Wesland. This. This one goes back to the. The address of candidates. And so what this would do is require the campaign finance to share the addresses or candidate addresses with legislative caucus leaders for the sole purpose of investigating residency. It's very similar to the language that's in the House version of this bill. And it would alleviate certainly our main concerns with Article 2 that eliminates most addresses being public, so we can make sure candidates reside in their district. And so this one's close to home. We've seen a recent example of it, and I think it's. Curtis Johnson was the Democrat candidate in Roseville. It's difficult to prove. Right. It takes due diligence. But like everything else in campaign finance, the transparency allows us to. All those with great interest hold each other accountable. It's also close to me is my House rep in 2016 was also removed from the ballot and prior to the election. And it's difficult to prove. If I think it took two court cases or two election cycles without having the address, at least in the political realm on both sides. Because you've. This is a. This is. Everybody has this concern. So I still think to remove the address. And there's no other way. Secretary of State's not going to do it. And the only thing they can verify is whatever address is Listed is just a legal address in a resident or in that district. And to me, that's just not good enough for us to move forward when we know it occurs. Not on a super frequent basis, but it does occur. So I would encourage a Green vote.
Senator Westland,
give me one moment.
Senator Corinne, while Senator Westland is digesting this, I may just have a question for you.
Just.
Oh, go ahead.
Sorry.
I might have had the same question you did.
Well, we'll see. My question is, so line 1.98 says, as a condition of receiving this access, a major political party caucus leader must agree to use the data only for official business and must not further distribute or publish the street address for any purpose. What would happen if they did? Senator Corinne?
Madam Chair, I'm not sure what that penalty would be, but I would, I would be open to exploring a consequence, a real consequence. I mean, we both have the same interest. And so I'd be more than happy to figure out what a consequence would be. I don't know what that is at this point, but I think the intent is we've got to figure out a way to do that and put very narrow guidelines or guardrails on it to make sure that on all sides, everybody who runs has the ability to know. Again, I think like with everything else, we could remove the addresses all we want. If you're going to run in a district, everybody's going to know where the heck you live and they just will. But in this case, I just think we have to know a candidate to have some other, I don't know any other way if somebody come creative way, any other way to validate where does somebody actually live? And then to meet the requirements of are you living there or have you acquired a mailing address of a residence that is in that particular political jurisdiction? So I don't know what the penalty would be, but I think we have to figure it out and we've got time, but that's why we brought it up for the conversation. I think it's important that we have to find a solution.
Madam Chair and Senator, I have a question and a comment. So the way I'm reading this is it says I'm reading this as any candidate. And it sounds to me like any candidate running for office would provide the information to the caucus leaders for the state Senate and the House. My question is, aren't you suggesting, I think your intention is that any candidate for House or Senate would have their information provided to caucus leaders, not just any candidate. So I think I don't think that's I think what I'm saying is what your intention is, but I'm not sure that's what the language is. And then the other thing I guess I would say is this is all addressed by this is all in the section dealing with reports filed with the board and those the Campaign Finance board wouldn't have our residential addresses in any event. The Secretary of State's office would. And so I'm not necessarily opposed to the concept. I'm just not sure that this is
quite getting to what Madam Chair, Senator Grin I think with that and Senator Whistleand I'll withdraw it and then we'll continue to work on it and find some path. Maybe campaign finance. Well, whatever it is, we got to find a way to do it. It's hard to prove, but we have to have that ability. So I'll withdraw the A7 or, I'm sorry, the A13.
Senator Cran withdraws the A13.
Thank you, Senator, and I'm happy to work with you on it. I just don't think it was doing what you were hoping it was.
Other amendments or discussion members.
Okay.
If there's no further amendments, I will just say thank you for bringing this bill. I appreciate all the work that has gone into it. I think in a time when we are seeing clear and directed attacks on our democracy, it is important that we are showing Minnesotans that we are doing the work to protect that democracy and expand it, making it very clear that voting is safe and secure and accessible here in Minnesota. So appreciate all the work that has gone into crafting this bill. Closing comments, Senator Westland.
Thank you.
Senator Matthews, add something then to the whole bill that wasn't just an amendment. So if I have the chance, I'd like to ask something. Thank you, Madam Chair, Senator Westland, I have been asked to help Clarify on your A5, page 2, section 3, your disclaimer for lobbying material. The new language in there is talking about how that we must identify individuals and associations responsible for advertisements with a disclaimer substantially in the form provided in paragraph B and B says the disclaimer must identify the name of the individual or association responsible for the content of the advertisement. Either a phone number, actively monitor email or website. Is your intent with this to have this apply to any one pager that a lobbyist comes by to say, here's a bill that's coming up on your committee on Monday and it needs to have an association disclaimer on anything left with the legislature or any handouts provided to committee. How detailed is the intent in this section, Senator Westland.
Madam Chair and Senator, this was language that came from the Campaign Finance Board. So I think I would invite Mr. Sigurdson to come back again and sort of explain what the intention was. I do think that if I remember correctly, that this was in response to a court decision. But I will let Mr. Sigurdson describe Mr. Sigurdson.
Madam Chair. Senator Matthews, this would be limited only to grassroots lobbying material, which is the material that urges members of the public to contact their public or local officials to take an official action. So an information sheet, a white paper that's brought to you by a lobbyist, is not covered by this disclaimer. It's only for the radio advertisements that say, contact your legislator and ask them to vote yes on something. That type of advertisement would have to have a disclaimer.
Senator Matthews.
All right, thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that clarification. And just as a quick follow up, then, this is not for any individual that's sending their own information sheet to a legislature. This is some other entity that's coordinating a mass collection of people to speak out on one issue. Correct. You're not going to get Joe Smith in my district who wants to mail me his thoughts about sf whatever the bill number is coming up.
Is that correct, Mr. Secretson?
Madam Chair. Senator that is correct. It doesn't apply to individuals.
Senator Lucero.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't know if it would be to you or to Senator Wesland. So I'm looking at the agenda here and I just want. I have a couple questions here. So the next item on the agenda is Senate File 4006. And then there's a note on the agenda that says this bill. So the bill that will be coming is included in the election elections policy omnibus bill. So can you what's the difference between what we're about to vote on and what is coming?
Madam Chair and Senator. So the Secretary of State's bill has been incorporated into our omnibus bill. However, there is a lack of clarity about how the other body is moving bills this year. And so we did want to make sure that the Secretary of State's bill actually is being dual tracked, so it's being included in the omnibus and being sent separately to the floor just to make sure we cover the bases. And so when we do get to that particular bill, there's an amendment to that to match it up with what's in the omnibus.
Senator Searle, thank you and I appreciate that clarification. And then one more question. Is it for the we're about to go into legislative break here. And so this is the elections omnibus policy bill. Are we expecting this as it then for this committee or when we come back, is there a finance bill or
just more clarification, Senator Westland, Madam Chair and Senator, I don't know. The Finance chair is right there. You can ask him. I don't know if there will be a finance. I mean, I imagine there will be some, some ask of some sort, but I that is not as clear at this point that there will be a finance bill.
So.
But you can ask him.
And as a follow up, just Senator Lucero, is that what my question is getting to is, are we expecting this is the last committee of the session, barring some unforeseen circumstance?
Madam Senator Larson. Senator, you say that as though you don't like coming here, and I feel kind of hurt by that. If we. And Senator Limmer, you just keep your comments to yourself or I'm going to make you spell consanguinity. I think that this is the bulk of our work. That's unless something comes up if there's a need for an informational hearing on something I'm not anticipating. But again, the finance part of it is just a little bit up in the air. So I think this will represent the bulk of the work from our committee this year.
Senator Lucero.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, given that this is likely the last committee, I just wanted to have a few closing remarks and before we vote on this, what likely will be the product of our work year? So as I have been meeting with constituents over the interim here and having many communications this legislative session, among the top concerns that I'm experiencing from Minnesotans and for people in my community is the election fraud and their concerns about election integrity. And it's been very disappointing as being a member of this elections committee, that this has been one of the most lopsided partisan committees in this legislature where little to zero, I shouldn't say zero, very little Republican bills are heard and every Democrat bill is heard. And the product of this committee is doing nothing to stop fraud. It's doing nothing to stop the vouching cheating that's occurring, nothing to stop illegals from voting. It's doing nothing to protect election integrity. This committee doesn't seem to be focused on ensuring confidence in elections that Minnesotans expect and deserve. And it's doing nothing to ensure that only US Citizens vote in our elections. So much more can and should be done. And the differences are stark in terms of the priorities between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans are going to continue to fight for election integrity and ensuring that only United States citizens vote, whereas Democrats are continuing their priority of protecting illegals and eroding the systems, the processes that would ensure integrity. So unfortunately, I'm going to have to vote no on this bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Corinne thank you Madam Chair. Senator Wesland. Yeah, I think the Senator Wasero talked about some key issues we have. Right. Some things that are, are okay, some fixes. But we keep trying to round off edges of legislation that we've had over the last three years. And I share we haven't worked to increase the transparency. And one of the things that frustrates me the most is really about the statewide voter registration database. Today we have portions of it that are not public data anymore. Even the names. Our citizens don't know that there is no independent method to be able to validate in that only legal US citizens reside on the database. We used to have that ability, maybe not in the current election cycle of somebody voting, but in a subsequent election cycle. Much like campaign finance is that when everybody's got their own the self interest, they police it like mad. And we used to have the ability to go out and do a lot of that independent validation. And the one thing that changed it is not having voter status over election. We don't track the chronological history, which is probably something we should require the Secretary of State to do of the change of voter status. But election after election over election, we would then and we used to be able to track those things and make sure that a person that was still ineligible didn't vote in a subsequent election. Now today, if you're an inactive voter, right, we don't even know who you are. You can request a copy of the statewide voter registration system and you get something, but you don't get the entire file. Somebody, an inactive voter, they can still vote and we need to know those things. What status were they when they vote? Did they do same day voter registration? Again, that's probably the greatest challenge or concern that I have. And we've done nothing to address those issues. We're much further, in fact we're now codified that most of those things that would provide that are not public data. So that's my greatest concern. We haven't done anything to alleviate those fears. We've heard so many bells. We even heard the I voted sticker of having a contest for I voted. So we solved all the world's problems, but there are still issues remaining with transparency. So everybody has a great trust and faith in a transparent election process that everybody can believe in. So thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator Wesson.
Senator MARTY thank you, Madam Chair. I think contrary to Senator Lucero's kind of comments, I think we've got one of the best administered and fairest election systems in the country. I think we've shown civic interest in this state above others. I mean, I think I'm always disappointed in the level of voter turnout. We generally lead the nation in voter turnout and we have fair elections. There are lots of allegations of fraud, but when you look at the percentages of how many people do it, have pretended to be somebody else or pretended to vote when they're not allowed to, we have strong penalties and the handful of cases that happen every few years, they get prosecuted. So I just think, I think we should be proud of the system we have. I think it's well run, it's fair and people participate. And I think we should take that as a acknowledgement that we're doing the right things on this. And this bill, if anything, increases transparency, increases fairness in the elections. And so I'm sorry to disagree with those who think this is not hitting what the voter priorities are, but I believe they want fair elections and I believe they want elections where people can participate and not be turned away from them because somebody thought of some new way that's going to disenfranchise some voters. And, and the possibility it might occasionally find somebody who was voting when they weren't supposed to be because that's. You're blocking thousands of people with some of the steps that some of your caucuses proposed, blocking thousands of people from participating. I keep thinking the I had parents who were alive till age 97, they moved up here when they were early 90s and they didn't have current public IDs with photo IDs. They didn't. And they weren't going to get them because you couldn't get them to a place where they could get an id. They were able to vote until a year or two ago, but they wouldn't have been able to vote. I think turning away thousands of people because somehow you think if we don't have these extra what you believe are fraud prevention efforts, we might prevent the 1 in 5 million voters who tries to do voter fraud. I just think that's a terribly unfair action. And I very much want to make sure that Minnesota citizens who want to vote are able to vote and we don't put more barriers in them. And I thank Senator Wesland for putting together a Good bill.
Senator Swazinski, I just want to thank
you as well, Senator, for bringing this bill forward. And I've said this before, but the. I'm just so proud to call myself a Minnesotan with the highest voter turnout in the nation year after year after double. Well, not every year. Well, whatever. Everybody. Every other. How would you word. Whatever the. Every two years, we have the highest voter turnout in the nation, and we should be so proud of that. And over the course of the time I've spent on this elections committee, I've been so proud, not just as a Minnesotan, but as an American, because this nation is just. Every generation expands suffrage in some way, shape or form. And, you know, people were against giving people the right to vote based on race, and people were against giving people the right to vote based on sex. And at the height of the Vietnam War, when the bulk of. Of the young men and eight women who died in Vietnam or 18, 19 or 20, there were those that did not want to lower the voting age to 18. And so I just. Everything in this bill that encourages people to turn out and encourages us to continue to be the highest voter turnout in the nation is just a joy to behold. So thank you, Senator Bolden.
Westland,
I am so. Am I the last one on this committee to make that mistake?
Senator West.
Senator Westland, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry.
Senator Bolton, Senator Wesson has been both Senator Wickland and Senator Bolden today. So congrats for your transformation there. Any other comments? Senator Carlson?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just need to say that I am so proud to be able to sit in the. In the peanut gallery here and watch this bill being assembled and watch the incredible skills that are being expressed here. And it makes me proud. And it makes me. Actually, it confirms what I have seen and experienced over the last few years when I go to national assemblies and I hear people talking about the Minnesota system and how much they think that we are doing such a great job here in Minnesota in administering our elections and this bill and this committee is why we're getting that kind of good response. So it makes me so proud. And I think that Senator Westland is just doing such a great job with herself and her staff that I couldn't be more proud. I have. I'm in my seventh chemotherapy and tomorrow is my eighth. And the problem is, is that when you get a chemotherapy, you're suddenly put into a land of kind of, you know, the rabbit. You know, you're going down a rabbit hole. So you can't really pay attention as closely as you'd like, but once you get cleared up a little bit, ready for your next chemo, you start to think a little bit clearer. And that's where I am right now. And I think that this is the. This is. I couldn't ask for a better end of session, a better clean set of bills, and even I'm proud of the opposition in watching how well you all got along and used each other's best ideas to assemble a good bill. So congratulations to the whole committee. I appreciate what you do.
Thank you, Senator Carlson. Any other discussion or comments, members? All right, I will just again say thank you, Senator Westland. What I hear from folks in my district is this is the work that they want us to do. They want us to protect and expand democracy. They see what's happening in Washington, D.C. where Republicans are trying to disenfranchise millions of folks from being able to vote, and they want us to stand up for their rights. And so that's what we are doing, increasing transparency. We Minnesotans are voters, as has been mentioned, we are consistently have the, you know, the highest rate of voting in the country. We take that very seriously. And this bill reflects that. So, Senator Westland, to your bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members. I would like to thank members of the committee for the work that we've done this year. I do have a vastly different idea about our work than has been expressed by some members. I will say this.
I.
The concerns that are being raised by members of the public regarding fraud in our elections is derived exclusively from the fact that there has been a drumbeat for years on the part of the Republican Party to undermine confidence in our elections. Repeating the same misinformation over and over again will not suddenly, magically transform that into truth. And what we know is that there have been numerous studies by such bastions of liberalism as the Heritage Foundation, Trump's own doj, that have not found meaningful proof of voter fraud. What I will say is this, when I tell members of this committee, regardless of which side of the aisle you're on, I would love to work with you. Those aren't just words. I actually mean them. If you have ideas, I'm happy to talk about them. We have some policy differences, and I think that's okay. But if you come to me in good faith and say, I have an idea, my door is always open. I have an espresso. Come talk to me. I am proud of the work that we've done. I am proud of our state I am proud of the election process that we have. I am proud of the neighbors that show up election year, year after year, working as election judges to make sure that our system works well. I am proud of the fact that we have the highest voter turnout or often the highest voter turnout in this country because people in Minnesota take their civic responsibility seriously. I am very proud of the fact that we have put into our omnibus bill this year protections against voter intimidation and against intimidation against our election officials who work to help people vote. And I know that I voted Sticker bill was a small little thing, Senator, but when a student comes forward towards the end of session and we have time to hear the bill, by God I'm going to hear the bill. We had a student who came and gave one of the best presentations I have ever heard in a committee about why a bill was a good idea. And I know that this is someone who will continue to be engaged in the future. Sometimes it's the small things that we do that matter. Also today we are taking a strong stance in the face of troubling actions on the federal level. And it is my intention to continue forward in the face of federal headwinds to ensure that Minnesotans freedom to vote is not infringed upon and that every person in the state feels safe casting their vote. As I have said before, everything we do here, everything we have in our society is foundational on the right to vote. Every other bit of work that we do is foundational on the idea that the people in our districts get to make a choice about who they send here to do that work. And I'm proud of that. I want to close my remarks with my thanks for Senator Carlson. Chair Carlson has continued to be engaged and as we know, he's on a health journey that I'm sure is often challenging. Senator Carlson has been a wonderful partner during the four years now that I've been in the legislature. He's been an excellent mentor and I do appreciate his support and his kind words. And lastly, you know, I want to say something funny about this. I want to thank Will Ferrell again for all the help that he's done. Sorry I had to do it. Will Freeman has been our researcher for our side of the aisle and he's done a really excellent job. But we have the best staff here and I hope everyone here will agree with that. I want to thank both our partisan and nonpartisan staff who really put in hours and hours and hours of time, often late at night. And coming into today, there were a lot of Moving parts and a lot of loose ends that needed to be tied up so that we could take up our work today. And I just want to offer my sincere thanks to staff on both sides of the aisle. Thank you so much. And again for our excellent nonpartisan staff here as well. Thank you to the committee. I appreciate this. I think this is a good bill. I intend to vote yes.
With that, Senator Westland moves that Senate File 4223, as amended, be recommended to pass. Ms. Stankiewicz will take the roll.
Senator Westland.
Aye.
Senator Kuran.
No.
Senator Carlson.
With pride. Yes.
Senator Barr.
Nay.
Senator Bolden.
Aye.
Senator Swadzinski.
Yes.
Senator Limmer.
No.
Senator Lucero.
No.
Senator Marty.
Aye.
Senator Matthews? Senator Port.
Aye. There being six eyes and five nays, the motion passes and the bill is.
The bill passes to the floor. All right.
Next before us is Senate File 4006, which is the Office of the Secretary of State's Elections Administration bill. As has been described already, this committee has already considered this bill. So what we have in front of us is a committee engrossment which reflects the bill as it was when we stopped work on it at its last hearing. Our plan today is simply to make this language align with similar provisions in the omnibus bill. So we're not taking testimony and we don't expect further discussion on these provisions. We'll just adopt two amendments to make the language here match in the omnibus bill as amended. Senator Wesland.
Madam Chair, I would like to move the A11amendment.
Senator Wesland moves the A11amendment. Senator Westland.
Madam Chair, again, as has been mentioned, we want this version of the bill to pass to the floor as a standalone bill, and we want it to match what is in the omnibus bill. And so that is the purpose of this amendment, is to bring it into conformity with the omnibus.
Any questions on the 811 members? Senator Matthews?
Madam Chair. Not to the amendment, but just for clarification, are we going off of the CE1 language that doesn't have the bill number printed at the top for the underlying bill?
Yeah.
Madam Chair and Senator. Yeah.
It's the Senator Westland.
SCS 4006 is the bill number, and then CE1.
Thank you.
Questions then on the 8 11amendment? Seeing none. Ms. Dankiewicz will take the roll.
Senator Westland.
Aye.
Senator Curran, Senator Carlson.
Aye.
Senator Barr. Senator Bolden. Aye. Senator Swadzinski. Senator Limmer. Senator Lucero. Senator Marty. Senator Matthews. Senator Port.
Aye.
There being nine eyes and two nays, the motion prevails and the amendment is adopted.
Madam Chair, then we the A13amendment. And again, this was the language that was brought based on conversation with stakeholders. We saw this amendment in the omnibus as well. So I would move the A13amendment.
Senator Westland moves the A13amendment. Any questions about that amendment? Seeing none. Ms. Stankiewicz will take the roll.
Senator Wesland?
Aye.
Senator Coran.
No.
Senator Carlson?
Aye.
Senator Barr?
No.
Senator Bolden? Aye. Senator Swadzinski?
Yes.
Senator Limmer? Senator Lucero. Senator Marty. Senator Matthews, Senator Port? Aye.
There being six ayes and five nays, the motion prevails and the amendment is adopted. All right. And now that the language in this bill matches that found in the omnibus, we will move to pass it. Senator Westland moves that Senate File 4006, as amended, be recommended to pass. Ms. Stankiewicz will take the roll.
Senator Westland?
Aye.
Senator Cran?
No.
Senator Carlson?
Aye.
Senator Barr?
Nope.
Senator Bolden?
Aye.
Senator Swadzinski? Senator Limmer. Senator Lucero.
No.
Senator Marty. Senator Matthews. Senator Port?
Aye. There being six eyes and five nays, the motion prevails and the bill passes. And that being the end of our agenda, this hearing is adjourned.
It.