Minnesota high court grills Minneapolis on lack of bipartisan election judges for early voting

State officials warn of administrative burdens to recruit, train and pay temporary staffers for a nearly three-week window of early voting.ST. PAUL, Minn. (CN) — A voter advocacy group urged the Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday to force the city of Minneapolis to use bipartisan election judges at early voting locations, arguing state law mandates such oversight before Election Day.The Minnesota Voters Alliance — represented by attorney Nicholas Nelson of the Upper Midwest Law Center, a conservative public interest law firm — says the city violates state election laws by relying on nonpartisan early voting officials, such as city clerks and municipal staff, rather than election judges at early voting locations.In Minnesota, election judges are temporary, paid employees trained to administer voting registration and oversee polling site operations. At least two judges in each precinct must represent different major political parties, and no more than half of the judges can be from the same party.General election laws in Minnesota govern early voting unless statutory exceptions apply, leaving the key question of whether statutory judge requirements extend to early voting.The voter advocacy group contends in a petition filed June 11 that while state statutes permit any election staff to perform basic administrative tasks during early voting, key statutory duties — such as assisting voters with ballot marking, handling curbside voting and resolving registration challenges — remain strictly reserved for election judges.“It would be senseless to require all those checks and balances on Election Day only to allow them to be completely circumvented by an early voting process where anything goes,” Nelson said.The Minnesota Voters Alliance says staffing early voting sites with party-balanced judges would require a fraction of the administrative effort needed for Election Day, ensuring equity across the state’s 18-day early voting window that begins Oct. 16.Attorneys representing the city of Minneapolis and the Minnesota secretary of state pushed back, warning that imposing full Election Day staffing rules onto early voting sites would disrupt local election administration, especially in rural areas.“The Legislature was well aware of who would administer early voting, what they would do and the burden that would be placed on these counties and municipalities,” Adam Szymanski, senior assistant city attorney for Minneapolis, said. “Petitioners, however, urge this court to impose a burden on election officials and voters the Legislature did not require and plainly did not intend.”State Assistant Attorney General Allen Barr noted municipalities already face significant challenges recruiting enough partisan election judges for Election Day — up to 30,000 statewide, according to the secretary of state’s website.Barr said mandating party-balanced teams for nearly three weeks of early voting could force cities to spend unsustainable amounts of resources or reduce early voting altogether — an outcome he argues runs counter to legislative intent.He said lawmakers intentionally gave local officials flexibility in administering early voting sites, and that the Legislature would have been clear if it intended to require election judges for early voting. The bench pushed back on that argument.“Wouldn’t it also be an equally powerful argument to say if the Legislature had intended your position, they would have explicitly said — like they did for other election judge jobs — the early voting official can do what the election judge is supposed to do?” Justice Paul Thissen asked.Justices also expressed concern over assistance and accommodations for voters who can’t complete their own ballots.“The problem here is it feels like you’re taking away a right from a voter,” Justice Karl Procaccini said. “You’re acknowledging that a voter on Election Day has a right to ask for assistance because of inability to read English or a physical inability … but on early voting days, that is a right that the Legislature intended to take away from a voter simply because they’re voting early?”Szymanski said early voting officials are able to provide any help voters need.Pressed by several justices on concerns over election fraud and differing election policy, Barr noted the decision not to staff election judges during early voting was made after weighing the additional cost and burden on counties and cities versus the smaller number of people actually engaging in early voting.Nelson reiterated the voter advocacy group’s point that the burden of hiring a few additional election judges is minimal, and that there is no reason to have a “two-track election system.”“Minnesota is one of the best in the nation at providing ballot access, and that’s no reason to rest on our laurels,” he said. “It is a reason to think we don’t need to take our Election Day procedures and just throw them out when we’re creating an early voting system.”While appearing largely in favor of the voter advocacy group’s argument, justices questioned Nelson, noting while the Legislature required party-balanced judges in some circumstances, it omitted that condition from the early voting statute. They said administrative burdens cannot be overlooked.“It seems there is a suggestion that there’s an issue because there was no budget, they haven’t planned for this and perhaps there’s even a lack of people available to actually be the election judges for the early voting period,” Justice Anne McKeig said.Chief Justice Natalie Hudson said the bench would work to decide well ahead of the start of early voting in October to give local election administrators sufficient time to recruit, hire and train staff if needed.While Tuesday’s case is a challenge specific to Minneapolis, the eventual result will establish legal precedent for all 87 counties and municipalities across the state.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads