Challengers huddled across the street from the Dinkytown polling place. Photo: Chris Steller, MnIndy
They went there to ensure that nobody was wrongfully turned away from a Minneapolis polling place infamous for electoral mishaps. They ended up across the street, with police threatening arrest them if they set foot inside again.
On Tuesday night, election officials accused two men at a Minneapolis polling place of disturbing the voting process. Each had been officially designated by Ward Three council candidates to keep an eye on the proceedings at the University Lutheran Church of Hope, a short walk from the heart of the University of Minnesota campus-area commercial district known as Dinkytown.
The election judges ejected the challengers at about 6 p.m. Citing witnesses’ claims about raised-voiced disruptions, police refused to allow the challengers back inside.
But it’s not the first instance of election-day mishaps there: It’s the same polling place where 133 ballots went missing last year during the Franken-Coleman U.S. Senate recount. And it’s the same site where student residents were turned away from the polls despite having proof-of-residency documents that had allowed them to register to vote there in past years.
With those troubles in mind, candidates hoping to replace incumbent Council Member Diane Hofstede posted official challengers there Tuesday. (While other states have poll watchers, Minnesota’s election law terms candidates’ representatives who monitor polling-place activity “challengers.”)
Tensions between election officials and candidate challengers came to a head after a man who owns a house across the street was twice turned away with proof of residency documents deemed inadequate for same-day registration.
William Wells, a challenger for Republican Jeffrey Cobia, says he reminded officials about the missing ballots from last fall. Ryan Ahlberg, an attorney who DFLer Allen Kathir had designated as his official challenger, asserted his right to talk to voters about their eligibility to vote.
Election judges refused comment, but Ahlberg said they argued that challengers could only object to voters’ qualifications, not discuss options for proving residency.
First two and then three police officers arrived, kicking out the challengers as well as, in due course, a pair of reporters who had been alerted to the situation by Kathir.
The conflict spilled out of the church as darkness, rain and the temperature were falling.
Two squad cars idled empty for about an hour while officers spoke by phone with city officials, occasionally emerging to ask the challengers what they intended to do next.
One challenger asked police exactly what would happen should he try to re-enter the polling place. The answer: He’d get a citizen’s arrest warrant for trespassing and a trip downtown to Hennepin County jail that would last six to eight hours.
Ironically, that challenger was Ahlberg and not the representative of candidate Melissa Hill, who ran under the “Civil Disobedience” banner. Hill told the Minnesota Independent she isn’t sure the volunteer who offered to monitor voting for her in Dinkytown ever showed up.
In the end, Kathir appointed his campaign manager, Rick Brundage, to act as challenger for the 45 minutes of voting that remained.
Ahlberg and Wells said at least four to six people attempted to vote during the course of the day but were turned away and did not return.
By Kathir’s estimate that amounted to about 10 percent of the precinct’s total turnout.
The dispute over, Kathir returned to his get-out-the-vote efforts, shuttling students from nearby blocks to the church before the 8 p.m. close of polls.
Hofstede prevailed with 1,485 first-choice votes, to Kathir’s 348 and Cobia’s 242.
Hill had 112.













7 Comments »
Comment posted November 4, 2009 @ 10:11 pm
At my polling place, some of the same judges have been working there for years; in fact, yesterday, one recognized me and said, “how have you been doing since last year?”
My point is that it’s likely that the judges at this place are some of the same folks who presided over the missing ballots election and so we need to go after these judges and either fire or transfer them to other locations where they can be monitored.
Also, candidates need to work not only to get out the vote, but to educate voters prior too election day as to what they must bring to the polls. But if Hofstede had her way, they’d instead have to worry about a ticket for their porch couch.
Comment posted November 5, 2009 @ 9:21 am
One problem with elections is that you cannot fix a problem after the fact. If you don’t get it right on election day then it is almost impossible to fix. Election judge volunteers do a great service, are trained in election procedures, and provide their own check between themselves. However, they are not infallible. There is a need for a way to question an election judge’s decision on election day when a higher level official or supervisor could resolve questions in time that people could still vote if they are eleigible. Most likely there is some statue in place to do this. The question is then, is the election system set up to actually implement those rules, and are they fairly implemented in every precinct, or are some voters just out of luck?
Comment posted November 5, 2009 @ 11:24 am
If a “challenger” asks me about my voter registration status, may i ignore that questioner and simply proceed to the voter registration table at my polling place?
Comment posted November 5, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
On the Secretary of State’s site there is the Election Judge Guide (http://www.sos.state.mn.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=5060) that defines what a Challenger may do.
What the Challenger is there to do is “question the eligibility of specific voters”. It doesn’t say anything about challenging the election judge…
(Full disclosure – I’m an election judge too).
Comment posted November 7, 2009 @ 3:46 pm
I experienced ridiculous intimidation from a challenger in Plymouth last November. By the time I decided to simply ignore her and move along to get my ballot, I had presented the following documentation:
U.S. Passport, MN Drivers License, current utility bill, and my voter registration postcard. She was adamant that I produce my SS card, which I no longer have. The SS card is to prove citizenship, but the U.S. Passport documents that. I have been registered at my address for over 15 years, and never have had to do anything more than provide my name.
When I complained to the election judge, I was told that I “look like a Democrat”, and that particular challenger “does that kind of thing”.
Comment posted November 10, 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Todd, that challenger went WAY beyond and should have been asked to leave the polling place.
again from the Election Judge Guide: “The law limits what challengers may do to question the eligibility of specific voters. Challengers must fill out a form and swear that, based upon personal knowledge they know that the voter is not an eligible voter.”
I hope that next year if this happens again you can ask the Chair Judge to enforce the law regarding this type of behavior.
Comment posted November 15, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
Challengers cannot directly challenge voters, read the state statutes and election rules. They can only challenge by direct knowlege of the voter and then only to the election judges in a written form. If you are bothered by a challenger, talk to the election judges and your political party HQ.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment