Barbara Mura Sutter

I support Congressman Brad Finstad's recount, and I encourage him to challenge 993 questionable votes in the data I have been reviewing. Many people don't know our election law significantly changed for the 2026 election - part of a package of laws crammed through in the last DFL trifecta. Early, in-person voting used to allow registered voters to fill out ballots, which were sealed in an envelope while their voter record was verified to ensure they didn't cast a ballot elsewhere in the same election. After days or weeks have passed and their information was verified, the ballot envelopes were examined and opened in the presence of partisan election judges (selected and approved by at least two major parties - both Republican and Democrat), then scanned and tallied. These are the "Abentee Ballot Boards" you've heard so much about because Democrats refused to allow Republicans to be present until we won a major court case. The new law allows people to cast ballots in person, and have them immediately tallied by the machine if the voter is matched to an existing voting record and hasn't voted elsewhere. No envelope. No waiting period. This matching to a voter record must occur every night before securing the ballots and the tally must match. The problem is, I'm looking at the early voting data for CD1, and I see 993 votes were cast in this time period - with none of them matching to a voter on record. I also find it hard to believe that counties had both a Republican and Democrat election judge, approved by each party, standing in each of the 21 county election offices five days a week, for 9 hours each day for 18 days. That's 162 volunteer hours from each of the 42 volunteers. In other words: if these ballots were cast without being matched to voter records and without 2 election judges from each major party's approved list, the ballots were unlawfully cast. Here are the facts: In Minnesota Voters Alliance, et al. v. City of Minneapolis, No. A26-0997, the Minnesota Voters Alliance and Dianne Napper brought an election petition challenging Minneapolis’s planned staffing of Early Voting locations. The Supreme Court described the dispute as whether election judges are required under Minnesota’s new Early Voting statute and notes that the petition sought party-balanced election judges during the 18-day Early Voting period. The Minnesota Supreme Court ultimately determined that election judges are required at Early Voting polling places. That ruling matters as it confirms that early voting is not simply a process in which administrative personnel receive ballots. Election judges perform statutory election functions, including administering voter challenges, participating in voter-registration procedures, assisting voters as authorized by law, monitoring the operation of the ballot counter, and carrying out other safeguards and procedures established by Minnesota election law. Minn. Stat. § 204B.21 provides that election judges are appointed by the appropriate municipal governing body or county board and expressly provides that at least two election judges in each precinct must be affiliated with different major political parties. Minn. Stat. § 204B.21 Each major political party provides a list of approved election judges. This Supreme Court ruling therefore provides another safeguard that voters and interested citizens can watch and verify during this new Early Voting Process. These safeguards only work when our elections are conducted according to law. The Legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 203B.30, subd. 3, in 2026. The statute requires early-voting officials each day to remove and secure the ballots, document the date, voting location and number of ballots cast, and reconcile the ballots against the voter certificates completed that day. 1/2