Committee on Elections - Mar 24, 2026

Senator Westland, when you are settled and ready, you may tell us about Senate file 4734.

Ms. Reeder, please introduce yourself and begin.

Thank you very much, Senator Westland. Anything else before we move to questions?

Members, questions or amendments?

Senator Wesson.

Right.

Right.

This bill will be laid over.

Thanks.

So thank you, Senator Westlake. Madam Chair. So I will say that I have seen some of the other designs from other states. One of them was a fish. I'm thinking walleye. But one of the reasons why doing this on a local level, too, is there might be something unique to a particular community, and it gives the kids in particular an opportunity to do a design that then they will see people wearing around. And so I'm. I hear you. I'm less cynical than you, and I just think this is a great idea. We've had the same sticker for a long time. And some of the other designs, I'm sure if you Google it, you can see some of the other designs, they're actually very unique and they may be unique to that area in that region. So this is actually the second student proposal that I have brought forward in the legislature. The other one was the service learning bill in ED Finance that actually passed. And so whenever I have the opportunity to carry a bill that's an idea from one of our bright young leaders, it's always a thrill to do so. Senator Swiszynski, this is the third time

Thank you.

Well, I would just want to say thank you for bringing this bill. I think agree, if there are ways we can get more people, especially young people, engaged and excited and, you know, inject a little fun, I'm, you know, measuring in Rochester. I would like to see a corn cob voting sticker. I'm not going to explain that. If you're from Rochester, you know, I think there's opportunities there. And so thank you for bringing this bill. Any closing comments?

Thank you, Senator Westland. Senate File 4734 will be laid over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus. And I will pass the gavel back to Chair Wessland.

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just will say the amendment that we adopted. Thank you for that. Was some technical assistance from council to sort of get it in the shape in which we would like. So thank you for hearing this bill. I will start by saying that this bill is spent specific to the city of Rochester and the Rochester school board elections. Rochester Public schools currently operates under a very unique alley system of elections established in law back in the 70s. And currently it is only Rochester who does this and one other city, Alexandria in Minnesota, who do it this way. Most school districts use the at large standard. About 95% of school districts across Minnesota do it that way. Another method of doing it is geographic districts. This ally system, I will say, is confusing. It is confusing to voters and it creates, you know, challenges. It allows candidates to challenge a single board member. So every. Every seat represents the entire district, but they're labeled as. As individual seats.

And people choose which seat to run for. And so because of the sort of uniqueness of this and the confusion of it, there has been a desire to move to a system as 95% of other cities do it this way. And so there was community engagement. I want to give credit to the school board for doing that engagement, to listening to voters, listening to folks in the community who have. Have called, who have asked for this to be a more clear system. They have taken action. As a school board, it is. This has unanimous support. I will also note it has unanimous support from all of the. The entire Rochester delegation in both bo on both sides of the aisle. Senator Nelson was going to join me in presenting this bill today, but is presenting a different bill in a different committee, so is not able to be here, but is on the bill and supportive of the bill. So everyone sort of locally who is connected to this is supportive of it there is no opposition and so would ask for member support so we can move to a less confusing system that everyone desires. And with that do have some testifiers, Madam Chair.

Absolutely. Chair Wesland, members of the committee, my name is Justin Cook. I am proud to serve on the Board of Education of Rochester Public Schools Independent School District535. I'm a member of the Board's legislative committee and I'm here in that capacity. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and a special thank you to the bill's authors for bringing this forward on our district's behalf. I'm here to strongly urge your support for this legislation as you've just heard. It would repeal the effect of a 1974 special law that forces Rochester Public Schools to use an antiquated alley system for our at large elections. And for those unfamiliar, this system requires that each of our at large seats are treated as a distinct parallel contest. Even though all board members represent the exact same constituents and hold identical responsibilities, candidates are forced to file for a specific numbered seat. The system is highly confusing, as any member of Rochester's board will tell you. During campaigns, candidates find themselves constantly explaining the mechanics of this bizarre election system to voters, often at the expense of discussing substantive education issues. Worse, this system distorts the will of the electorate. Voters are frequently forced to arbitrarily choose between two preferred candidates who happen to file for the same seat, while simultaneously being forced to select from a pool of candidates they prefer less, or even an unchallenged candidate who happen to file for another seat. This bill corrects these issues by ensuring that our at large elections are simply governed by Minnesota's standard election law. On March 3, Rochester School Board unanimously passed a resolution calling for this precise change before voting. We deliberately tabled the matter at a previous meeting to invite public feedback. Despite multiple stories in the local news, not a single person has come forward to defend the current system, which itself is remarkable. As all of you will surely appreciate. The status quo always has someone to defend it, but in this case, it does not. The change called for by this bill is unanimously supported by our board, by the Rochester legislative delegation, and will better serve our voters. This is all upside. It aligns Rochester with the standard election framework used statewide. It reduces ballot confusion. It costs the state absolutely nothing and it is completely non partisan. We respectfully ask that you support this bill. Thank you, Chair Wesland and committee members for your time and for your service to Minnesota.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So the I think I heard in the testimony that it goes back to 1970s. So what is, what was the reason or rationale that was put into place to begin with?

Thank you, Madam Chair. That is a good question. I don't know. I could not answer that. It has, there, I'm sure, was a reason. That reason does not apply now as nobody, as has been shared, is wanting to continue it this way. As I said, there it is. Rochester and Alexandria are the only two cities who do it this way. I can't speak to the original driver.

Well, yes, Chair Westland, as I mentioned, the board has not been able to identify a single person that is in favor of retaining this system according to local news coverage or archived news coverage. I should say from 1973 or 1974, there was at least some desire to prevent people from voting for, you know, if the election is to vote for up to four or vote for up to three, depending on how many positions are up for election in a given cycle. There was a desire to prevent people from voting for only one, rather than bubbling in three names or four names. And this was a scourge that was described as bullet voting, which is not something I have any contemporary familiarity with. It really would amount to the same thing as just not voting in certain contests, which of course is possible. As best we can tell, that was the motivation. But I don't haven't been able to identify anyone with a present recollection of what those concerns were. That's just from the local news reporting, Senator Lucero.

you

Thank you, Senator. And I, you know, I guess for whatever the reason was in the 70s, it sounds like the community would like to do it differently and it appears to have bipartisan support from the legislators in the area. So I don't know, it is an interesting historical fact that maybe we can find out what the, what the reason is.

Senator Bolden.

Thank you.

No, other than just, again, there's no downside to this and appreciate the consideration of the committee.

Yep.

Yes, Madam Chair.

Okay.

So

Thank you, Madam Chair. So I'll be walking through the A5amendment, and I'll go through at a high level, since it's made up of bills that we've heard, and I will point out any changes that have been made to the bills since the committee has laid them over. So Starting with Article 1 on page 1, section 1, this comes from Senate File 4223, which is a Westland bill, which I'll refer to as the Board Admin Bill. I should back up Article one, relate to the campaign finance and fair Campaign practices policy. So section one is from the Board admin Bill. It amends the definition of metropolitan government unit. Section 2 on page 1amends requirements for principal reports. Section 3 on page 2 establishes disclaimers for lobbying material. There's one change here, the last There are two paragraphs that have been consolidated from how the committee last saw it, and that's because the disclaimer size was the same for two different sizes of signs. So it's just been consolidated into one paragraph so the substance is the same, even though there's fewer words. Section four on page three combines sections from both the board bill and Senator Bolden's 3823, which is the local statements of economic interest. And so in merging those two sections there were some changes. So neither one looks quite the same when you look at it in the bill. But the effect is to expand the requirements to disclose a potential conflict of interest to public officials or local officials elected to or appointed by a political subdivision. Section 5 on page 4 makes conforming changes about disclosures of potential conflicts of interest in its first both from the Westland and Bolden bills. Section 6 on page 4 is from the Bolden Local EIS bill and adds local elected local officials to the statute on disclosure of representation of clients. Section 7 on page 5 is again from the Board Admin bill and the Bold and Local EIS bill. This amends the statute on time for filing amendments of economic interest. This adds in public officials and local officials in political subdivisions. And in merging the two, there were some changes from how either appeared in their original bills. Section 8 on page 5 requires the Secretary of State and agencies to provide contact information to the board for people who are required to file an eis. There are a couple of changes here. One is to require that the information about candidates come from the affidavit of candidacy. And previously there was a sentence that said data retains its classification when it's moved from one place to the other, and that sentence is redundant because it's already covered by the Data practices Act. Section 9 on page 6 comes from the Admin bill. This makes a change, a conforming change in the timeline for the filing of original statements of economic interest. And again this merges the Edmond bill with the Bold and EIS bill and there are some changes here from the merger from how both original bills appeared and the same for section 10. It merges those same two bills and this modifies the place of filing statements of economic interest and adds in the political subdivisions. Section 11 on page 6 adds local candidates to the section on prohibiting earmarking. Section 12 on page 7 and let's see, sections 12, 13 and 14 all on page 7 add candidates to provisions related to coordinated and non coordinated expenditures. Those are all from the admin bill. Section 15 on page 7 is the first provision from Senator Marty's bill on coordinated expenditures and disclaimers. This is a section that specifies that an expenditure that is a coordinated expenditure but that would otherwise meet the definition of an electioneering communication is considered a coordinated expenditure. Section 16 on page 7 is also from the Marty bill and this amends the non coordinated expenditure section. One change that appears here is in the original version there was, excuse me, some changes about how news media was defined and that provision has been deleted from this bill from this amendment. Section 17 on page 8 is from the Board admin Bill and this adds language about time for filing reports for special elections held in conjunction with the state primary or state general election and an immediate effective date has been added here. The next section is 18 on page 10. This modifies requirements for local election reports. Section 19 on page 11 modifies requirements of the content of campaign reports. A July 1st effective date was added. Section 20 on page 14 specifies campaign report periods. A July 1st effective date WAS added. Section 21 on page 14 is from the Senator Marty Coordination and Disclaimer Bill. This specifies that if an expenditure is a coordinated expenditure, it's not an electioneering communication. An Aug. 12 effective date was added and in case you're wondering why August 12th, that's not a typo, that's the day after the state primary. Section 22 on page 16 is another provision from the Mardi bill. This makes some clarifying changes to the ie disclaimer language. It also has an August 12th effective date added. Section 23 is from the Board admin Bill. This modifies when a candidate may give notice that they will no longer abide by spending limits based on their opponent's report. This has an August 1st effective date added. The next section is section 24 on page 17 from the admin Bill and this section allows the board to impose a late fee to a ballot question, political committee or fund that files a report without including the required disclosure statement and an August 1st effective date was added to that section. Section 25 on page 18 is from the Board Admin Bill. This adds local candidates to the statute on multi candidate political party expenditures. The next two sections are a merger appear on page 19 and 20. These modify disclaimers and they are merger of the Senator Marty Bill and Senator Westland's address security bill. Section 16 on page 19 modifies the campaign material disclaimer. It modifies both the text of the disclaimer. It allows the provision of an email address instead of a mailing address and it adds additional language that specifies that for a campaign or a candidate, putting the disclaimer on the website once satisfies the requirements of the section and it also states that materials posted on a website that are capable of being redistributed must include a disclaimer and between the merger and some feedback from the Campaign Finance Board, there are several changes that have been made to this section and to the next section as well. Section 27, as I mentioned are a merger of those same two bills. This section modifies the independent Expenditure disclaimer. Paragraph A includes the misdemeanor penalty for a person or committee who violates the disclaimer requirements. The text of the disclaimer is modified, the email address is an option instead of a mailing address and it specifies that material posted on a website that is capable of being redistributed must have a disclaimer. Section 28 on page 20 is from the Mardi Coordination and Disclosure disclaimer bill. This modifies disclaimer requirements for electronic communications and there were some technical changes here. Getting rid of redundant language and changing the name of the Office of Administrative Hearings to the Court of Administrative Hearings because they have changed their name. Section 29 on page 21 is from the Board Admin Bill. This modifies size, duration and location requirements for signed disclaimers. Like the earlier provision, this consolidated two paragraphs that had the same size requirement for disclaimers. Sections 30 and 31 are both from Senator Wesley's 3893 and this increased penalties for intimidation and interference with the voting process and for interference related to performance of duties by an election official. Senator Bolden Section 32 on page 23 comes from Senator Bolden's local EIS provision and this requires candidates for Park District Board of Commissioners in the Three Rivers District to file a statement of economic interest and an immediate effective date was added to that section. Section 33 on page 23 is Senator Bolden's 1915 which requires the board to conduct a study on voluntary campaign spending limits. Section 34. On page 24 is Senator Crans 4086 which requires the board to conduct a study and pilot project using about local candidates using the board's reporting software. Section 35. On page 25 is Senator Bolden Senate File 828 which establishes the working group on local candidates campaign finance reporting. Section 36 on page 27 is Senator Marty's 3886 which is a coordination and disclaimer bill and it repeals a rule on rulemaking linked to a disclaimer. And finally there is a new section at the very end that provides a default effective date for the article of January 1, 2027, unless otherwise noted. Article 2 is mostly well is entirely made up of Senator Westland's Senate File 3710, which is the bill on address security and additional options for spending campaign funds on security issues. Madam Chair, would you like me to go through this section by section or just the sections where there's changes? Just. Why don't you just do the.

Thank you. So there are only a couple of sections in this provision that where there are changes. The first one is section 14 on page 40 and there's just a small change here. This is a section that's a duplicate section. It appears twice in the bill. So there are some non related provisions in here because the two sections have been merged. So it's repeated in section 15 of this bill. There is a strike to a reference to contact address and it has been replaced with mail address. Judiciary heard the bill after this committee did and there were two provisions that were added in judiciary. One of those is is section 16 on page 42. This classifies street address data as private that are on affidavits of candidacy filed before May 1, 2026. The next change is to Section 22 on page 45 and Section 23 on page 45. These are the two provisions that require the local governments and Secretary of State to remove reports and statements from their websites and put them back up. There was language in there about them having a seven day grace period and instead of doing that, that was removed and the effective date is now seven days after final enactment. In section 23. There were some changes about how the board is to prioritize their work and taking them and replacing the board the reports on their website. So now it is the reports for the last since January 1, 2025 and then going back to 2022 and going back beyond that. And then section 24 on page 46 comes from an amendment offered in Judiciary and this provides for transition to new affidavits of candidacy and then some new language that appears in the this DE that allows for nominating petitions to not be considered deficient to address the concern that if you file a nominating petition that complies with the new law or the old law, you just wanted to make sure that nobody gets caught. So both of these provisions will allow a person to comply with the law as it is today or after the law is enacted. And I'll note that there are two provisions that appeared in the Westland Bill that do not appear in this article and Those are those two provisions related to disclaimers that appeared in Article 1 that were merged that I already talked about earlier. Section three is the election policy article. Article one is on page 46. This comes from the Secretary of State Admin. Bill, and this has to do with the notification of administration of absentee and early voting. One change here is that paragraph B was broken into two paragraphs and an immediate effective date was added. Section 2 on page 47 is about delivery of absentee ballots and agents. Section that was from the oss bill. Section three on page 49, also from the OSS bill, relates to using the SVRS for all elections. Towns may use the SVRs for March elections, and there's clarifying language that's been rewritten to specify that they may use it for March elections and if they do, they must require must comply with the requirements of this section. A new subdivision one has been added to specify that if anybody that uses the SVRS must meet technical capacity and other requirements. Section 4 on page 50 comes from the OSS bill. This requires early voting officials to maintain a printed copy of the voter certificate. Section 5 on page 50 is from the OSS bill. This provides specificity on the procedure used for processing absentee ballots. Section 6 on page 51 and section 7 on page 52 come from Senator Bolden's 3703 about presidential eligibility certification. The first of these two sections requires a petition to include a declaration that a candidate satisfies requirements of the Constitution. Section 7 requires the President and Vice President to certify that they meet all constitutional requirements. Previously, both of these had an immediate effective date, and that immediate effective date has been removed. Section 8 on page 53 comes from the OSS bill, and it changes the requirement that the OSS must print election law books. This has an immediate effective date added on page 9. Section 53. This includes the I Voted sticker contest bill that was previously heard today. Section 10 on page 54 comes from the admin bill and section 11 on page 54 also comes from the admin bill and both these sections remove references to color ballots. Section 12 on page 54 and section 13 on page 55 both come from the admin bill and these are the changes to city canvassing and school district canvassing boards, and they Both have an August 1st effective date added. Section 14 on page 56 is from Senator Bolden's Presidential eligibility certification, and this requires the party chair to certify that the President and Vice president candidates meet constitutional requirements. The immediate effective date was removed. Section 15 on page 56 comes from the admin bill and the county. This is the county ballot questions must be held on a uniform election date and this section has an immediate effective date that applies to elections held on or after September 1st. Section 16 on page 57 and section 18 on page 58 are both coming from the Senator Bolden bill for the Rochester School Board election that we just heard earlier today. And the effective date was in a separate section in the bill we heard earlier today that has now been added to section 16 just because there are fewer moving pieces and it's easier to track in an omnibus bill when there's fewer pieces. Section 17 on page 58 is a new section that's been added that relates the admin bill that allows municipalities to notify counties of intent to administer absentee voting until June 12th this year. And finally the last section 19 on page 58 repeals the OSS authority to sell intellectual property rights to the SVRs. And if you're following along on the printed copy, you'll see a funny section 20 that just says section one is effective. That was a mistake and should be deleted. That concludes my walkthrough and I'm positive