Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Oak Grove Can Use Paper Voter Rosters in 2026 Election
“Sep 11, 2026
The Minnesota Supreme Court today ruled in favor of the City of Oak Grove in a case brought by the Upper Midwest Law Center, holding that the city has authority to decide whether paper or electronic voter rosters are used at precincts within its boundaries for the 2026 general election.
The ruling comes just days after UMLC argued the case before the Minnesota Supreme Court this week. The case, City of Oak Grove v. Steve Simon, et al., was brought after state and county officials attempted to block Oak Grove’s decision to return to paper voter rosters.
Oak Grove had previously used electronic rosters through an agreement with Anoka County, but later terminated that agreement and notified officials that it would use paper rosters in future elections.
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that Anoka County, rather than the City, controls the roster format for Oak Grove precincts in elections involving state, federal, or county offices. The Court held that Minnesota law does not limit a city’s authority to choose paper or electronic rosters for precincts inside city limits.
“This is a major victory for local election authority and the rule of law,” said Doug Seaton, President and Founder of the Upper Midwest Law Center. “Oak Grove made a lawful decision for its own precincts, and the Minnesota Supreme Court confirmed that state and county officials cannot rewrite the statute simply because they prefer a different system.”
The Court granted Oak Grove’s petition and ordered that, under Minnesota law, the City has authority to determine whether paper or electronic voter rosters are used within its boundaries. The Court also recognized that Oak Grove has chosen to use paper voter rosters for the 2026 general election.
“We applaud the Court’s common sense decision, which derives directly from the plain meaning of the text,” said Nicholas Nelson, Senior Appellate Counsel at the Upper Midwest Law Center.
The Court issued its order with an opinion to follow. Click here to view the order. “
https://www.umlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Order-Grant-3.pdf
I was surprised by this favorable ruling.
Even though UMLC opted not to use Robert Kirchner’s strong argument invoking 201.221, the 1987 amendment, to highlight municipal authority unless having delegated authority (for any subject), the MN Supreme Court still decided that Anoka County could not dictate matters on roster choice (electronic or paper) to Oak Grove.
Here and here, one Oak Grove council member was quoted as saying:
“What started with one small Minnesota city raised a question with statewide significance.”
Paper Rosters Confirmed Optional
Paper rosters have been deemed optional according to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which is in line with the election statutes on same—in other words, so far, on this point, I think the court has ruled accurately.
For over two years on this page (projectminnesota.com), the recommendation has been to go with paper rosters as one of several key decisions local governments can make (with specific options for cities/towns vs county-level decision makers).
Two (2) Recommendations for City Councils & Town Boards
For cities/towns already voting in person, the recommendation is to cancel electronic roster agreements (just use paper rosters) and take back the processing of one’s own absentee ballots (instead of outsourcing to county level);
For those municipalities which have opted out of in-person voting (mail-ballot only), the recommendation is to immediately revoke that decision so there is an in-person voting option on Election Day. (These cities/towns should also do #1.)
Resolution templates available for city councils on projectminnesota.com/local
“Oak Grove is not asking for special treatment,” said Weston Rolf, Mayor of Oak Grove. “We are asking state and county officials to respect the authority the law already gives cities. Our community made a decision to use paper rosters in our precincts, and local election administration should not be overridden by officials outside City Hall.” (quoted from UMLC around the time of its press conference and supreme court petition filing).
Oak Grove, a city in Anoka County, in 2024 led by Mayor Weston Rolf, cancelled their electronic poll pad agreement with the county, which then sent a letter to county-wide head election judges (poll workers) suggesting felonies could/would be issued to them if violating the law. This letter—like Attorney General Keith Ellison’s tweet from 2020 about not having enough votes, yet—hasn’t aged well.
Excerpt from unsigned Anoka County Elections Department letter threatening election workers prior to Nov 5, 2024 election regarding electronic poll pads that were not properly rolled out in 2018
The City of Oak Grove was later represented by UMLC in the petition to the Supreme Court, which gave its order on Sept 11, 2026.
City Autonomy (Municipal Authority Unless Delegated) with § 201.221
To me it was interesting that the 1987 amendment of § 201.221 was not brought up by the petitioners representation, and so even though the overall decision went in favor of Oak Grove (and all municipalities who wish to have choice in roster), the stronger argument perhaps is yet to go on the record.
An Anoka County Elections Integrity Team leader has already made the case, previously, that according to § 201.221, unless a municipality delegates authority, it has the authority, especially for decisions such as this, given by § 201.225, which say municipalities may opt to use electronic rosters. (This probably deserves a diagram.)
Who Will Join Oak Grove?
Now is the time for any city and town, who already uses electronics but would like to stick with paper only, to make that decision (paper is the default roster and must be present at all precincts anyway, so no extra cost).
Paper is secure and auditable, while the electronic iPads and embedded software are dubious at best, and likely will be found to be capable of altering outcomes illegally—by design, they already can change election records.
While state propaganda will talk about ‘long lines’ & etc., if one is interested in the larger impact of using paper rosters, have a look at this video (starts at 90 seconds) showing Isanti County’s numbers versus neighboring counties. It isn’t what you might expect but it might start to connect the jigsaw puzzle pieces for those thinking critically about how all the electronics and software and networking capabilities intertwine.
Note for Video: Bear in mind that the Secretary of State’s data does NOT parse a) mail in ballots from b) early absentee (in person) ballots—rather, the data COMBINES the two, making it more difficult to analyze as desired. The comments in the video still stand, however, raising questions about what these electronic poll pads, when connected directly to the statewide voter registration system (the voter rolls), are capable of.
Ps Welcome back to X/twitter, Julian Assange after EIGHT years. And finally, here’s an interesting video about the sphere network, lots of intriguing things going on and to become aware of.