The latest disclosure from the Stearns County Sheriff’s Office make one point crystal clear: the chaotic activities surrounding elections in the St. Cloud area are not confined to a single polling place or a single county. When considered together with the Sherburne County Sheriff’s investigation, this new evidence reveals a recurring pattern of voter influence and polling-place disruption extending throughout the greater St. Cloud region.

As the map below demonstrates, the City of St. Cloud spans Stearns, Sherburne, and Benton Counties, placing three separate election jurisdictions within a single metropolitan area. This unique arrangement creates an environment in which organized groups can move voters across county lines, operate between multiple polling locations, and pressure-test election administration processes in more than one jurisdiction. The proximity of three separate voting entities in a large population center creates an ideal environment for a bus, influence, and ballot harvest operation to florish.

Stearns County Reports Reveal New Evidence of Illegal Voter Influence Operation

We've all seen the headlines highlighting the laudable goals of voter outreach, accessibility, and assistance for those who legitimately need help casting a ballot. But describing the network now coming to light as a voter-protection effort does not square with the evidence. Additional sheriff's investigations paint a far different picture.

There are two new reports that merit review.

The first arises from an election complaint submitted in Stearns County and referred to the Stearns County Sheriff’s Office for investigation. The resulting witness interviews provide new firsthand accounts that expand upon the events previously reported.

1. A Stearns County election official reported that “herself, her associate, and a representative from the City of St. Cloud has spoken to [The Teacher]… about hanging out inside and outside of the polling location several times during the early voting period.”

2. Stearns County election officials received a call from the DFL Director of Voter Protection who forwarded a complaint that, “interpreters are telling voters who to vote for.”

3. One voter interviewed stated that, “she overheard individuals telling voters who to vote for.” As is a common-theme, this woman was very “nervous” and concerned that her conversation would become “public.”

4. Another voter reported: 1) as she entered the polling place she was approached by people who were asking her who she was voting for and trying to influence her vote; 2) that she saw and heard these same people approach voters (inside and outside the polling place) telling them who to vote for; and 3) the nervous voter asked if her interview would be “public.”

5. A concerned citizen went to the Lake George Polling place and personally observed The Teacher “right inside the entrance to the building and next to the room where the voting was taking place… telling people to vote for [his wife].”

6. Another revealing statement from a Stearns County election official was detailed in the report, “election judges have a difficult time understanding what is being said to the other individuals of the Somali community members as they are speaking in their native language.”

Stearns County Report Election Complaint Investigation 9

404KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The second report describes an alleged double-voting incident in Stearns County. A husband and wife were escorted to separate polling locations on two different occasions. They first completed absentee ballots on September 23, 2024. On Election Day, November 5, 2024, they again cast ballots after completing Election Day registrations using a new address. The facts as detailed below, are very similar to the Sherburne County double vote:

• They were transported to the polling place by someone they did not know.

• Once they arrived at the polling place they were handed off to a different man, who escorted them into the polling place and controlled the voting process.

• Their poll escort completed their absentee application for them and used an address that was not where they lived.

• “Once she got the ballot, the Somali male completed the ballot for her, and nothing was ever explained to her about what was happening.”

• On election day, wife was approached by the “same person” who drove her to a different polling place and handed her off to another escort, which she reported, “The male who was helping her took her ballot and they walked to a booth where they voted. She described the male who helped her made all the selections on the ballot and never explained what happened.”

  

  Stearns County Case Report H&w Double Vote 4

  3.04MB ∙ PDF file

  Download

  Download

This Was Not a Simple Get-Out-the-Vote Operation

Taken together, the Stearns County and Sherburne County reports document a recurring pattern that crosses county lines. They describe organized transportation of groups of voters, the repeated appearance of the same self-described "interpreters" at multiple polling locations, and repeated concerns from election officials about improper influence inside polling places. The conduct described in these investigations goes well beyond the customary role of voter outreach or assistance.

Rather than isolated acts by overzealous volunteers, the reports describe recurring conduct involving the same methods, the same group of participants, and similar concerns across multiple jurisdictions. The pattern suggests organization, coordination, and repetition—not coincidence.

In my previous reporting, I focused on the Sherburne County portion of this operation, including the “caught-on-camera” double vote, escorted by individuals identified as “the Teacher” and “the Man in Black.” The newly released Stearns County Sheriff’s confirms that the Sherburne County double vote was not a one-time incident.

This was not a neighborhood get-out-the-vote effort. This was closer to a Peaky Blinders operation—where a coordinated network of individuals brazenly force members of their community to follow orders. Drivers recruit and transport voters, escorted them into polling place. They then either escort them or hand them off to other operatives, who remain with voters throughout the voting process. These handlers fill out the ballots for the voters and appear to confirm that they have voted as instructed. Viewed individually, each act may appear ordinary. Viewed together, the reports reveal a coordinated syndicate-style operation.

Multi-County Scheme Lures Vulnerable voters into Breaking Voting Laws

Perhaps most troubling is what happens to the vulnerable voters themselves. These individuals are allegedly manipulated, intimidated, and persuaded into violating election laws they often do not fully understand. In the end, they are forced to make an impossible choice: defy the neighborhood lieutenants orchestrating the operation, or risk becoming the person held accountable if law enforcement uncovers the scheme.

The evidence suggests that many caught in this scheme fear the consequences imposed by community enforcers far more than those imposed by government authorities. That is precisely why the secrecy of the ballot exists—to protect every voter from coercion, intimidation, and undue influence.

Yet instead of confronting these allegations and restoring confidence in the electoral process, election officials have largely responded with denial. Despite multiple documented incidents investigated across more than one county, one Sherburne County official dismissed the matter as “one past, isolated incident that did not rise to the level of disorder or disruption of voting privileges and rights, let alone any violation of state law.“

The growing body of reports from both Sherburne and Stearns Counties tells a different story—one that demands serious scrutiny rather than bureacratic double-speak. Even local St. Cloud area media outlets are starting to discuss the uncomfortable truth that St. Cloud has a problem. A recent headline describes it as: “Voter-Pressure Complaints.” As described in that article,

It appears that previous calls for local election officials to station sergeants-at-arms at polling places have reached a bureaucratic dead end. If local officials are unwilling to act, it is time for state or federal authorities to step in.

No voter should have to choose between obeying the law and obeying a person who escorts them into the polling place. No election judge should have to wonder whether the rules inside the polling place will be respected. And no community should be expected to accept repeated reports of intimidation and improper influence without demanding accountability and reform. The ballot belongs to the voter—not to the person standing beside them.

Matt Benda.

In one of my prouder moments in life, I was honored to install the first flag for our “paint the town red, white, and blue” initiative.

In a series of speeches leading up to his election in 1860, Abraham Lincoln frequently invoked the significance of the Declaration of Independence and how it “links the hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving people together.” As we are celebrating the 250-year anniversary of this document, we are again reminded of the importance of linking our hearts to the founding principles of liberty and self-government. We must not forget that our rights do not come from the government, but from our Creator, who endowed us with certain unalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Lincoln described these rights in profound terms:

To those who claim that our great country was neither founded nor built upon Godly principles, I offer this challenge: make your case against the words of Honest Abe—the Great Emancipator.

During our flag dedication ceremony, I offered the following reflection:

“Old Glory” is the symbol of these core American principles and honors the sacrifices of so many who fought to preserve these rights. Our growing group of volunteers intends to build on this initiative of “painting the town red, white, and blue” by adding more flags in future years. Patriots for Jesus is a community action team proudly affiliated with Restore MN. For more information on this growing movement, click here.

The mission of Patriots for Jesus is to publicly promote Christian patriotism. As articulated at our recent dedication ceremony by Ret. Pastor John Holt, “Thank you for the privilege of living in America. Thank you for the freedoms we cherish and may we never take them for granted.”

The traditional checks and balances appear to have broken down at the top level in Minnesota. In a State where “good” government has always been a point of pride, we must take a hard swallow and local leaders must step forward and demand change.

Tragically, the administration of elections at the state level has been overtaken by political activists. The organization and oversight of elections rests with a Secretary of State who is openly aligned with DFL-affiliated organizations. At the same time, enforcement authority at the State level lies with an Attorney General more focused on political theater than impartial execution of the law.

The next level of electiondefense lies at the local and county level in Minnesota. As outlined below, these enforcement mechanisms are producing mixed results, and local community leaders should demand more. If you’re interested in learning more about these efforts, consider attending an upcoming event in the Elk River area, where I will present a detailed overview of a community-driven initiative to Protect Our Polls.

For a time, I believed the State Party would play a meaningful role in calling out fraud and demanding reform. Unfortunately, an unhealthy fixation on the donor class has prevented the party from stepping into that role. Meanwhile, the Minnesota DFL has consolidated control over two state agencies with significant, largely unchecked authority. 1 With legislative deadlock on the horizon for the foreseeable future, a local action plan is needed to restore order and calm at the polling places.

EVIDENCE ESTABLISHES BREAK-DOWN

The evidence uncovered in Sherburne and Stearns Counties in Minnesota exposes the breakdown of the checks and balances in election adminstration and enforcement. Early in the 2024 election cycle, Stearns County election officials were concerned regarding the growing problem of a local Somali group calling themselves “interpreters” flooding the polling places with groups of voters. As detailed in the police report:

“I learned that [The Teacher] may be the subject of similar issues at polling locations in Stearns and Benton County (I was advised by Auditor/Treasurer staff). I contacted Stearns County Auditor/Treasurer’s Office and learned that they have been dealing with an issue related to translating and voter assistance at the polling place since July 2024.”

Stearns County election officials held a meeting with a group of 8-10 active voter assistants. The notes from this August 12, 2024 meeting can be viewed below.

Notes From Stearns County Lake George Polling Place

93.1KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

As these notes show, Stearns County advised these voting assistants that they could not linger in the polling place and were prohibited from campaigning in the polling place. These officials even consultated with the Office of the Secretary of State - and a representative of the DFL Voter Alliance. Given the fanfare under which the Secretary of State rolled out 2 the voter assistance initiaitive, it is no surprise the OSS took no further action, nor made any attempt to report these concerns to law enforcement

As the 2024 early voting process progressed, these previous admonitions to these voter assistants went unheaded. Records show Sherburne County election officials faced an onslaught of 100’s of voters being brought into the polling place by a single voting assistants known as The Teacher. As the evidence further establishes, the Teacher, and his associate The Man in Black, were just one of several teams 3 that were creating chaos 4 inside polling locations.

See Something, Say Something, Do Something

Sherburne County election officials worked diligently to manage what they could from inside the processing area during early voting. However, the polling area—where voters were completing their ballots—was left largely unmonitored and effectively under the control of these handlers. It was only when The Teacher and The Man in Black made a brazen attempt to facilitate a double vote that officials were able to intervene and report their concerns to the Sherburne County Sheriff. As the current Auditor-Treasurer, put it, “We all agree that we did what we were supposed to do - see something, say something, [d]o something.”

“At 1305 hours [The Teacher] and the [Double Voter] appear to speak, then [The Teacher] escorts the "[Double Voter] to the Auditor/Treasurer window where he helps turn in the second completed ballot.” Sherburne County Sheriff’s Report.

The Sheriff’s office took swift action and conducted a comprehensive investigation, including at least six witness interviews and the execution of two search warrants. Within two weeks of receiving the report from local election officials, a 385-page detailed report was complete and on the desk of the Sherburne County Attorney.

County Attorney’s Office Sidelines Voting Violations

Based on the available evidence, it appears that the system of checks and balances broke down at the Sherburne County Attorney’s Office. Following the Sheriff’s report on October 21, 2024, which recommended charges against the double voter, no written action was taken by the County Attorney’s Office for more than a year—until December 18, 2025.

Decline Letter 12

155KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Even if, as claimed in the attached letter, the former County Attorney reviewed the file on March 14, 2025, no official notice of that decision was ever provided, and any publicly available information remained concealed under the guise of an “ongoing investigation.” The County Attorney was undoubtedly aware that disclosing the details of a voter fraud issue during an election recount—one that could have broken a tie in the Minnesota State House—would have been highly controversial. 5

Without a doubt, the County Auditor-Treasurer observed conduct that raised serious concerns. Likewise, the Sheriff’s Office responded promptly, documenting the incident and preparing a detailed report. These were not the actions of officials chasing shadows—they were the measured responses of public servants who believed something warranted careful scrutiny.

Yet, instead of reinforcing this chain of accountability by taking those concerns seriously, the County Attorney chose to ignore them. In doing so, credible, front-line observations were effectively sidelined rather than investigated. That decision sends a troubling message: when local officials step forward to report irregularities, their efforts are clearly minimized rather than supported.

This breakdown in follow-through undermines confidence not only in enforcement, but in the integrity of the system itself. When those closest to the process raise red flags and are ignored, it discourages future reporting and weakens the very safeguards designed to protect the process.

The Sherburne County Auditor-Treasurer and Sheriff saw something—and acted. The County Attorney did not. This breakdown does not need to be the final word. The people of Minnesota still have a voice. The citizens of Sherburne County can—and should—demand that their polling places be secured against chaos and fraud.

To use absentee voting, a voter completes an application form and is issued a ballot by mail or in person. If they are voting in person during the first part of the 46-day absentee voting period, they are issued a ballot envelope and a signature envelope along with their ballot, just like by mail. After voting their ballot, they seal it in the ballot envelope, seal that in the signature envelope, and complete the certification form on the outside of the signature envelope. That sealed signature envelope is securely stored by the elections office, unopened, just like those returned by mail or dropped off.

Front Line Election Workers Impacted

Unfortunately for the front-line election workers, the full extent of this new in-person absentee process was not realized until the 2024 election was held. Based upon the video footage and interviews obtained from public data requests1 we now know that Minnesota early voting locations have been converted into a three-ring circus. These locations have virtually no protections for voter privacy and have been infiltrated by outsiders directing the show inside polling locations.

As reported in my previous Substack post, Sherburn County election officials reported a 2024 double-voting incident, which lead to an in depth investigation by the Sherburn County Sheriff’s Office.

The Teacher described as “acting as a director in the polling locaton”

When you enter a polling place during election day, there is an expectation of structure, security, and privacy established by processes and procedures. In stark contrast, the new in-person absentee process has none of these protections in place. What is exposed in these videos is that voting is occuring in the extremely busy publicly accessible counter-space at the auditors’ office, with a few make-shift voting booths in the corner.

The “Teacher” directing a voter to the “polling place”

Later, the “Teacher” is caught on video filling out another voters’ ballot

In some unrealistic utopian world, this disorderly environment is expected to be managed by the full-time staff of each county administrator. As the behind the scenes videos show, this expectation is grossly unrealistic. The election workers are properly stationed behind the glass to process absentee applications and accept ballots. In front of the glass, however, is a three-ring circus, with dominent members of the Somali community as the ringmasters influencing and directing the votes of the vulnerable members of their community. 2

The Sanctity of the Secret Ballot has been Compromised

The entire concept of the “sanctity of the secret ballot” is premised on a controlled and structured polling environment. This framework is explicitly mandated by state law:

“During voting hours no one except individuals receiving, marking, or depositing ballots shall approach within six feet of a voting booth, ballot counter, or electronic voting equipment, unless lawfully authorized to do so by an election judge or the individual is an election judge monitoring the operation of the ballot counter or electronic voting equipment.”

In contrast, the new early voting process introduces systemic disruption. It should come as no surprise that this level of chaos invites opportunists, intimidaters 3, and potential fraud into the voting process. The Sherburne County investigation offers a rare glimpse behind the curtain of secrecy maintained by state officials. Like the Great Oz, the illusion of stability presented to the public diminishes once the curtain is pulled back.

The Man in Black “escorts” voters into the polling place

Man in Black hovers over voter

The Teacher and the Man in Black oversee Double Vote

Voter Assistance Chaos Forced upon County Auditors

How is it possible that the “Teacher” and the “Man in Black” were even allowed inside the polling place? This situation arises from an expansive and obscure interpretation of Minnesota law advanced by State officials, which has been imposed on county auditors across the state.4 Minnesota law 5 defines ‘Individuals allowed in polling place as, ’ including a person who is ‘…assisting a voter with a disability or a voter who is unable to read English…”

This “assisting a voter” designation is significant, as individuals, like the Teacher, are not legally recognized interpreters. Yet, the Teacher and his associate, the Man in Black are claiming interpreter status. Minnesota law defines “Official Interpretive Services” as a distinct role designated by the county as election officials, who are required to wear a name tag or badge identifying that position. The Teacher and the Man in Black do not meet this definition and should not be afforded the special treatment or deference reserved for official interpreters. By improperly adopting the interpreter label, they have co-opted this perceived authority to exert control over the polling place and intimidate voters.

The Minnesota County Election Administrators Guide (p.89) provides further guidance on, “Authorized Persons and Activities in The Polling Place” which includes, “Persons helping a voter who is disabled or unable to read English (only while helping a voter).” This guide further explains, ‘People may not gather or linger in the polling place.’

The absence of such safeguards creates a pathway for individuals to access polling places under the guise of providing assistance, without meaningful oversight or accountability.

No clear-minded Minnesota citizen can review these photos and videos and conclude that early voting locations in Minnesota have not been compromised and infiltrated with mischief.

CALL FOR ACTION

Fortunately, Minn. Stat. 204C.06, allows jurisdictions to appoint 6 a sergeant-at-arms to keep the peace, or to otherwise assist election judges with polling place order and security. As detailed in the County Election Administrators Guide , “A sergeant-at-arms may be present or appointed at the polling place to help to keep the peace and assist election judges.” (p. 19). Guidance encourages jursidiction to utilize this position in the polling place if there is a growing concern or an incident. Absence any change in Minnesota law, County officials must act to protect voters and the front-line workers in securing the early voting polling locations.

The footage obtained from the Sherburne County Sheriff’s Office represents only a brief snapshot of two days of early voting activity. Even within that limited window, these videos reveal a clear instance of double voting, a false vote, and multiple examples of voter intimidation and violations of ballot secrecy. Under this early voting framework, vulnerable voters are being injected into a chaotic environement where their votes are not their own.

Sherburne County election officials reported that the Teacher alone had brought in “over a hundred” voters to this same location in just a two week timeframe. One of these same electon officials expressed frustration over the lack of oversight, “. . . there’s so many people that we can’t go out and call [them] out on it. We don’t have anyone out there is my other concern.”

County leaders must be confronted with this glaring evidence of polling place chaos. While state election officials project an image of calm and order, local election officials are left watching the disorder unfold before them. They deserve better—and, more importantly, the voters deserve better. Placing a sergeant-at-arms at early voting polling locations is a crucial stopgap measure that must be immediately implemented to secure the polling place.

State and national leaders must pull back from the failed experiment of early voting. Our polling places are secure and orderly on Election Day—proof that the system works when properly controlled. It is time to recognize that early voting undermines those safeguards and return to a system that ensures integrity and public confidence.

Two hundred fifty years ago, the Declaration of Independence proclaimed the unalienable rights bestowed by our God and Creator. It was the voices of faith—pastors and community leaders—who boldly declared these truths and gave voice to the Christian principles that helped form the foundation of our great nation.

As the story is told, Reverend Jonas Clarke stood among the revolutionary forces on Lexington Green when a British officer commanded, “In the name of the King of England, I order you to yield.” Reverend Clarke responded, “We recognize no sovereign but God and no King but Jesus.”

Today, we again call on faith and community leaders to proclaim these same truths. Let us stand as proud Christians and proud Americans. May our words echo throughout the community and inspire others to do the same.

To that end, we have formed a Community Action Team called No King but Jesus. We meet on the first Monday of each month at the Albert Lea American Legion.

Our mission is to publicly promote Christian patriotism in our community. To accomplish this, we are organizing public prayer events and working to “paint the town” red, white, and blue through the installation of more American flags.

Please consider joining us our community efforts to promote Christian patriotism in our community. Reach out through a direct message on my Facebook page - www.facebook.com/bendaforcommonsense

Your financial contritubiton is also needed to support these initiatives. Please donate in $20 increments by using the stripe link here.

We should reject this attempt to impose state-sponsored morality. The state—and its modern “ministry of truth”—is not our Church, and it is not our Gospel. Our faith does not come from political institutions, media narratives, or cultural pressure. It comes from the timeless truths that formed the foundation of this nation. As we approach the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we should remember and celebrate the Christian principles that helped shape the bedrock of American liberty.

In the early days of the American Revolution, a British officer reportedly confronted a colonial pastor and demanded, “In the name of the King of England, I command you to yield.” The pastor’s response captured the spirit of the age: “We acknowledge no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.”

This sentiment echoed throughout the Revolutionary era. Preacher Abraham Keteltas declared that “the cause of America is the cause of God,” while minister Samuel West taught that civil magistrates or Governors, “may be said to be ordained of God.”

The Declaration of Independence did not hide the source of these principles. Instead it proclaimed plainly and proudly:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Many of today’s leaders have abandoned these truths. Too often they attempt to replace the authority of the Church with the authority of the State, while media voices echo the same moral lectures. Yet truth does not originate from government offices or television studios. Do not allow these false messengers to silence your faith.

As America confronted the rise of communism in the twentieth century, President Dwight Eisenhower warned why the Christian understanding of human dignity was essential to preserving freedom. He explained:

“The concept of man as a child of God is in opposition to the communist concept of man as a creature of the state.”

Are you proud to be a Child of God and an American?

Then stand with us on March 26th at 5:30 pm at the Freeborn County Courthouse Commons for another “No King but Jesus” rally. Join fellow believers as we gather in prayer, seek revival, celebrate our faith, and boldly proclaim the truth of Christ.

Matt Benda, Attorney and Community Advocate.

My team is continuing to review the full investigative file. In the meantime, here are several key findings:

• An alleged double-voting incident occurred in Sherburne County on October 4, 2024, during the in-person early absentee voting process.

• According to the report, the incident occurred with the “assistance” of a man identified as “The Teacher.”

• The group of 10–12 voters present at the polling place at the time was described by officials as “chaotic.”

• A Sherburne County election official reported that he thought it was “weird” that the individual known as “The Teacher” repeatedly brought groups of 5–10 people to vote at one time.

• On October 9, 2024, a Sheriff’s deputy encountered The Teacher, who allegedly presented false identification to law enforcement.

• When questioned, The Teacher stated that he was attempting to help individuals overcome barriers to voting, such as language and transportation issues.

• The Teacher further confirmed that he had been driving groups of individuals to polling locations to vote.

• Stearns County received an election complaint alleging that interpreters, including The Teacher, were directing voters who to vote for at the polling place.

• Stearns County officials reportedly advised The Teacher that campaigning inside a polling place is prohibited.

• On October 17, a Sherburne County election official estimated that The Teacher had recently transported 100 or more individuals to vote.

• The same official further reported that some voters “did not appear to match the person on their identification.”

• A second Sherburne County election official identified The Teacher as the individual who had been bringing in groups on a daily basis.

In the fall of 2024, I initiated election challenges to stop counties from posting their official ballot (including the customized “timing marks”) for download on their website. Two of the counties were in the St. Cloud Area - Stearns and Benton County. Read here for more background on this effort and the difference between a “draft” or “sample” ballot and the official ballot.

As a result of this effort, I connected with multiple local concerned citizens. One issue that was reported to me involved a series of suspicious voting incidents occurring at the pre-election day polling sites in all three area counties - Stearns, Benton, and Sherburne. I made a series of inquiries but could not obtain any official confirmation that there were any such investigations.

The significance of any potential voter influence operation became more pronounced following the vote reporting irregularities that surfaced during the 2024 election in Minnesota House District 14B.At the time, I told Alpha News:

“We started with Sue Ek ahead by four votes, then down by 28 votes, and then magically down by 191 votes, which was outside the mandatory recount,” said Benda.

Coincidentally, Sherburne County later reported that additional absentee ballots were uploaded after the initial election results were released — ultimately shifting the outcome to Ek’s opponent. Throughout the recount process, no Sherburne County official disclosed the existence of a detailed investigative report dated October 21, 2024, which documented evidence of potential impropriety. Further, criminal charges were not filed until December 11, 2024 — shortly after the November 25 recount concluded.

In late 2025, a concerned citizen informed me that a criminal case had been filed in Sherburne County relating to the pre-election incident described above. On January 2, 2026, I submitted a formal data request and am now reviewing the redacted records produced in response.

The Teacher was charged with two misdemeanor offenses: providing false identification to a peace officer and driving without a valid driver’s license. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the false identification charge was dismissed and he pleaded guilty to driving without a license. The court imposed a 90-day suspended sentence — meaning no jail time if he remains law-abiding — along with $185 in fines and fees.

Stay tuned for more information as this investigation continues.

I will begin posting select documents to my paid subscribers as soon as possible, so please sign up to receive exclusive access to this information.

Matt Benda

Now, more than ever, the words we choose are important—they carry real-world impact. It used to be that the wrong words might cause hurt feelings or make tempers flare. In today’s highly charged world, however, careless words can spark anger, violence, murder, and other acts of pure evil.

Like many in today’s dark and troubled world, I have been drawn back to the words of faith. My faith is driven by the all powerful message of Jesus the King. He provides so many words that help express the angst of today’s weary and wandering world. It is with this backdrop that we are holding a “No King But Jesus” gathering for community prayer and healing.

Together, let’s revisit these teachings and ask Jesus to provide our community with the wisdom to use our mouths in a thoughtful and positive way.

Lord, let the words of our mouths and the thoughts of our hearts be pleasing to You, our Rock and our Redeemer. (Psalm 19:14)

I think back to my years as a young attorney. I had a famous Mark Twain quote posted in my office: “The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning and the lightning bug.” I would fret over finding the right word to capture the proper subtleties of meaning. As a society, we need to strive for wisdom in our choice of words and use these expressions to bring about peace and forgiveness.

• Our communities deserve unity, not division;

• Our community morals and laws should be honored and enforced;

• Our spiritual leaders and law enforcement officers shoud be respected and protected;

• We call for “praying for change” over “protesting for change.”

Absent the right words, it seems that many good people resort to acts of rage to express themselves. These acts often arise because people feel helpless and alone—their voices unheard. This is the devil’s playground: he whispers falsehoods and convinces the lost that dramatic acts will shock the world and force others to hear the “words” they could not speak. Without a belief in eternal damnation, this deception of the enemy offers a false and dangerous tonic of expression.

Following these acts of desperation, we carelessly point the finger—asking, Who did they vote for? What was their gender identity? These words of division and accusation are also whispers of deceit. The devil laughs in glee when we speak in these tongues of confusion, each trying to be understood, yet no one truly hearing the other. Only when we choose to speak with quiet grace - rather than anger and accusation - can we silence the lies and begin to truly hear one another again.

As I reflect on my days spent searching for that dramatic “lightning” phrase to elevate a legal argument, I think again of Jesus—who showed us the power of the Lamb rather than the Lion. Like the image of the Lamb, we can learn from the humble glow of the lightning bug. Simple words, too, carry great power. The challenge is not to speak louder, but to speak with light—with words that build up rather than tear down, that heal rather than wound.

Please join us in seeking those simple words of prayer and reflection. On Thursday, October 16th at 5:30 p.m., we will gather by the mermaid at New Denmark Park in Albert Lea to search for the right words of expression—words of hope, healing, and revival.

The current case, Minnesota Alliance for Retired Americans v. Simon (62-CV-24-854), was filed on February 23, 2024, in Ramsey County District Court. For more background on this case, read my previous post from April 1, 2024. The plaintiffs, represented by the Minneapolis law firm Greene Espel, and the Elias Law Group, argue that Minnesota’s requirement—found in Minn. Stat. §§ 203B.07 and 203B.121—violates Section 201(b) of the federal Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. § 10501(b)) when applied to absentee voters who are also registering at the time of voting. The VRA prohibits voter qualification laws requiring proof “by the voucher of registered voters or members of any other class.”

Judge Sheu’s 2024 Ruling: VRA Violation for Absentee Registrants

On June 14, 2024, Judge Edward Sheu issued a declaratory judgment concluding that Minnesota’s witness requirement, as applied to voters registering to vote absentee, violated the Voting Rights Act. Judge Sheu did not issue an injunction, but his ruling would have required the Minnesota Secretary of State to revamp election procedures—establishing a separate method for processing absentee ballots submitted with a registration form, without a witness attestation.

Judge Sheu reasoned that the witness requirement, in this context, amounted to impermissible “vouching,” and therefore could not be enforced without violating federal law. This ruling was appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Court of Appeals Reverses: Witness is Not a Voucher

On July 23, 2025, the Minnesota Court of Appeals unanimously reversed Judge Sheu’s ruling. The appellate court clarified that Minnesota’s mail-in voter registration process does not require a witness to “vouch” for a voter’s eligibility or residence. Instead, the voter provides their own eligibility documentation, and the witness simply attests that the voter presented such documents.

Minn

802KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The appellate court held that this administrative attestation does not trigger the VRA’s ban on voucher systems. It distinguished Minnesota’s neutral, modern process from the discriminatory laws that Section 201(b) was designed to prevent—namely, laws in the Jim Crow South that required Black voters to obtain personal endorsements from white registrants to vote.

Supreme Court Grants Review

The plaintiffs petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court, which granted review on August 6, 2025. The case is now pending, with briefing scheduled as follows: Plaintiffs’ brief: Due August 14, 2025; Secretary’s brief: Due September 15, 2025; RNC/RPM amicus brief: Due September 22, 2025.

RNC and RPM Relegated to Amici Status

The Republican National Committee (RNC) and Republican Party of Minnesota (RPM) sought to intervene at all stages of the case: district court, Court of Appeals, and Supreme Court. Each court denied intervention but allowed the political units to file amicus curiae briefs in support of the state’s defense of the law.

As amici, the RNC and RPM have argued that the witness requirement is a reasonable and uniform election safeguard, enacted by the Minnesota Legislature to protect against fraud and ensure ballot integrity. They warn that carving out judicial exceptions could undermine public trust and burden election administrators with inconsistent standards.

Not the First Challenge to the Witness Requirement

This is not the first time Minnesota’s absentee witness requirement has faced legal attack. In 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, similar plaintiffs—represented by the same Elias Law Group—filed suit against Secretary of State Steve Simon and negotiated a consent decree that temporarily suspended the witness requirement for the August and November elections.

When the RNC and RPM attempted to intervene to stop the suspension, Ramsey County Judge Sara Grewing denied their effort, and the Minnesota Supreme Court later dismissed a related case (Kistner v. Simon, A20-1486) on procedural grounds, invoking laches due to the delay in bringing the challenge. As stated in my previous post, they seem to keep running the same play until they can be stopped.

What’s at Stake?

If the Minnesota Supreme Court affirms the Court of Appeals, the witness requirement will continue to apply uniformly to all absentee voters, including those registering at the time of voting. If the high court reverses and reinstates Judge Sheu’s ruling, the Secretary of State will be required to create a separate witness-free process for absentee voter registration—raising significant implementation concerns. Eliminating this simple registration requirement also makes it easier for mass registration and mail-in voting, without voter eligibility safeguards.

This case raises fundamental questions about the scope of federal voting rights law, the constitutional role of state legislatures, and whether modern election laws can be invalidated based on statutes originally aimed at dismantling segregation-era voter suppression.

“Every voter's vote is entitled to be counted once. It must be correctly counted and reported.” — quoting Gray v. Sanders,

Benda opened his argument with a powerful call to uphold the dignity of counting and reporting votes correctly.

“Voting has evolved rapidly from the simple process of dropping a ballot in a box on Election Day to a complex framework where voting starts weeks in advance and electronic machines are used almost exclusively to accept, tally and report vote totals.

The on-going evolution of “voting” justifies dynamic scrutiny of the entire process to protect the dignity of "counting and reporting votes correctly."

He declared in an open court of law that Rice County, and at least six other Minnesota counties have voting machines with embedded modems which connect to the internet. Such fact is a clear violation of Minn. Stat. § 206.845, which states:

“No connection by modem is permitted.”

Benda also emphasized his argument that modems qualify as part of a “voting system” under Minn. Stat. § 206.57, yet have not been properly certified as required by law. In arguing for dynamic scrutiny of electronic voting systems, he warned:

“Eventually, there will be some type of snafu… Either the power goes down, data is lost or compromised, or in a worst-case scenario — a bad actor infiltrates our election process.”

Addressing the appellate court's procedural ruling on service of process, Benda criticized what he called a “drive-by jurisdictional ruling,” noting that under their interpretation, over 130 candidates would have needed personal service—“including three of you sitting here today.”

In a surprise development, in the opening moments (starting at 5:12) of oral arguments, Chief Justice Natalie Hudson stated, “you make persuasive arguments, I think, in your brief that the [service of process part of] the statute is really more of a claims processing provision which would suggest that it goes to personal jurisdiction as opposed to subject-matter jurisdiction.” This was not expected as the classification of the service requirement as a subject-matter jurisdiction process was the sole basis relied upon by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in dismissing this case.1

Benda For Common Sense V

107KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Minnesota Supreme Court appears poised to reverse the Court of Appeals’ published opinion on this jurisdictional quesiton. Securing initial jurisdiction, however, is only the first step toward achieving full judicial scrutiny of modem usage in Minnesota elections.

The Supreme Court asked whether the delay in this case had effectively made the action moot, or too late to proceed. In response, Benda argued that the modem question for the 2026 election is the same as it was for the 2024 election. The parties have already created a strong record upon which the district court proceedings could be launched. Benda urged the Court to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision and remand the case to district court:

“The election officials in this case have made every attempt to stagnate scrutiny… Voters look to this Court to help us find a path where public checks and balances evolve.”

The full oral argument is available on the Minnesota Judicial Branch website - HERE. There is no deadline for the Court to issue its order, but past practice suggests that a ruling should be issued later this summer.

If this case is remanded, Benda For Common-sense must be ready to finalize the engagement of expert witnesses and other case preparations. Please donate in $20 increments by using the stripe link here.

Our case argues that this practice violates the statutory modem ban in Minnesota, and that the OSS’s failure to examine or certify these modems is erroneous. Prior to putting these modems on trial and under scrutiny, however, we have been forced to battle through years of hurdles and roadblocks. The current roadblock is a ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals that we were required to serve all candidates running for all offices in the 2022 election with a copy of the petition. Our best estimate is that this would have required personal service on over 130 candidates in the Rice County election. We have found no other circumstances where this onerous requirement has been applied in an election errors and omissions action under Minn. Stat. 204B.44.

On May 5th, our case will appear before the full seven member panel of the Minnesota Suprement Court. 2 There are many ways for you to follow this case and more importantly show your support. The morning of May 5th (9:00 am) you can watch the Supreme Court livestream here.

You can also attend in person at the Minnesota Judicial Center at 25 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard., St Paul, MN 55155, Courtroom 300. If you do plan to attend, please note that there is limited seating in the courtroom, but there will a televised feed in the atrium outside the courtroom. There are general rules of decorum that need to be followed. I am also requesting that my supporters refrain from wearing any shirts, hats, buttons or any other items with writing or messages on them. I will be wearing my best red tie, and I ask that our group wear a red outfight, scarf or other red clothing to show your support!

Also, the Rice County Republicans are hosting an event following oral arguments at a nearby location. This is a private event, and we are requesting that you RSVP to contact@ricecountyrepublicans.com.

Guest speakers have been lined up and details will follow. One nationally known speaker will be presenting an update on election transparency and accountability efforts at the national level.

Finally, while I don’t often solicit donations, this effort is not easy and to-date we have relied upon purely voluntary donations for costs and expenses. I have never been paid a fee for any of my work. Also, whether or not we win at the Supreme Court level, we are prepared to continue to scrutinize the election process. This will require technical-expert review of the voting systems. We are in contact with national experts in this field and we will need funds to support their review of Minnesota’s election systems, and importantly to prepare them to testify when the time comes.

The Plaintiff in this case is the non-profit, Benda for Commonsense, which is a 501(c)(4) qualified organization. If you are able and willing to donate to our continued efforts, please click here. This stripe link allows you to donate in $20 increments.

Thank you for following this journey. Too often, it feels like the deck is stacked against us. However, persistence and perseverance are the lodestones of this effort. Your support and encouragement are invaluable. Please comment, share this post, and invite others to do the same.

Benda For Commonsense v. Anderson, 999 N.W.2d 893 (Minn. App. 2023).

114KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The parties that brought the lawsuit were my non-profit corporation, Benda for Commonsense and Kathleen Hagen. Hagen is an Engineering Project Manager by trade, specializing in Mechanical and Systems Engineering. Professionally, Hagen spends a significant amount of her time making sure processes are efficient, safe, and secure for a fortune 500 company. Hagen was also employed as a head election judge in Rice County until she was removed following the 2020 election. We are now known as the “Appellants.”

This matter started in Rice County district court on August 23, 2022, when the Appellants initiated a three part/count lawsuit against the Director of Rice County Property Tax and Elections. Counts I and II were requests that the district court compel compliance with document disclosure requests under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. Count III requested that the district court require the correction of an error or omission relating to the use of modem hardware embedded in the election machines utilized by Rice County. Minnesota has a specific statute that allows for the courts to remedy errors or mistakes in the administration of elections. Minn. Stat. 204B.44.

On January 17, 2023 the Rice County district court dismissed all three counts of our lawsuit. On February 23, 2023, we filed our appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals to review whether the district court properly ruled on these matters. A summary of this portion of the lawsuit can be found here. On December 18, 2023, the Minnesota Court of Appeals took a path of least resistance and affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all of our claims.

The significant determination in this order is as follows:

A quick review of the canvassing results from Rice County from the 2022 election show that there were 65 offices on the ballot, with multiple candidates for each race.

Rice County 202 Canvassing Results

39.3MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

You read that correctly — under the current ruling by the Minnesota Court of Appeals, we would have been required to serve over 130 candidates to even get our court action under review by the district court. The randomness of this ruling has a legal term: “drive-by jurisdictional ruling” - meaning it is not applied consistently and elevates a procedural requirement into a jurisdictional bar to entry.

Fortunately, on February 28, 2024, the Minnesota Supreme Court granted our Petition for discretionary review of the dismissal of our lawsuit.

In a bit of an unusual twist, our case was put on hold pending the outcome of another case under review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Given that the Court decision in that case would impact the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction in our case, we had to wait until that case was decided, which did not occur until October 23, 2024.

With that background, the following primary issue is now under review by the Minnesota Supreme Court:

We argue to the Court that it would be inconsistent with the intent of the statute to require that all candidates up and down the ballot be served with every petition as a pre-requisite to the court even obtaining jurisdiction of the matter. As we articulate in our written submissions/briefs, this would also be inconsistent with how Minnesota courts have previously handled these cases.

These are excerpts from our primary brief:

“Every voter’s vote is entitled to be counted once. It must be correctly counted and reported.” Gray v. Sanders, 372 U.S. 368, 380 (1963).

It is not a matter of if, but when, judicial intervention will be required to remedy some type of hiccup in the electronic counting and reporting of votes in Minnesota. The catch-all provision of Minnesota’s Errors and Omissions statute is clearly drafted to allow judicial intervention regarding “any duty concerning an election”. Minn. Stat. §204B.44(a)(4).

* * *

The current appeal relates to one of the more onerous threats to the electronic voting system in Minnesota, wireless/modem connectivity to transmit early election results to the Minnesota Secretary of State

The brief continues,

Rather than acknowledge this heightened risk and embrace the need for potential judicial scrutiny, the Respondents/election officials that are parties in this matter advocate for a restrictive and limited jurisdictional scope of Minnesota’s dynamic election review process. Respondents’ defensive and short-sighted request that this Court impose multiple subject-matter jurisdictional deterrents should be rejected. These inapplicable jurisdictional barriers include an improperly strict application of a claim-processing service requirement; and an interpretation of the Errors and Omissions statute that strips away the original jurisdiction of district courts in Minnesota.

As set forth below, a careful review of Minn. Stat. § 204B.44 establishes that the legislature did not intend to rank these provisions as having the jurisdictional consequences advocated by Respondents. Instead, as articulated by the United States Supreme Court, the Respondents’ requests to avoid scrutiny are simply a request for, “drive-by jurisdictional rulings” that “should be accorded no precedential effect” on the question of subject matter jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 522 (2006).

As articulated throughout our briefing, the Minnesota legislature clearly did not “rank” the service requirement found in Minn. Stat. § 204B.44(b) as a requirement of obtaining subject matter jurisdiction. Instead, this statutory language was clearly added to, “create an efficiency in the Errors and Omissions Petitions in election matters.” This was supported by comprehensive legislative history that the language relied upon in dimissing our claims was added at the specific request of the judiciary branch to “create an efficiency in the Errors and Omissions Petitions in election matters.”

In our Reply Brief, we request that the lower court ruling be reversed and the matter be remanded/sent back to Rice County district court,

“As elections become more complicated, the judiciary should refrain from limiting its scope of review and ability to address unforeseen circumstances. In fact-intensive circumstances, this review may be best conducted in a district court forum. As shown in this case, this often requires the building of a detailed record, motion practice, and appellate review.”

We are requesting that the Minnesota Supreme Court reverse the Minnesota Court of Appeals’ drive-by jurisdictional ruling, and send this case back to district court to proceed through discovery, and a full trial to determine the legality of the use of modems in the election process.

Stay tuned for more details!!

This one, however, caught my attention. Why would some counties in Minnesota post a “sample” ballot that did not contain any notation or reference that it is not the official ballot? When questioned as to why the “actual ballot” was posted, one county official responded, “Although there is no uniformity among all Mn Counties, multiple counties have adopted the same practice as [xxxxx] County.” I had to read that email multiple times . . . this official admits that there are election administrators in multiple counties that collaborated to adopt a practice to post what appears to be their official ballot on the website of the Minnesota Secretary of State.

I had to dig deeper. As my readers know, I continue to pursue a lawsuit questioning the use of modems in our election equipment. This journey quickly taught me that the complex technology inside these black boxes is extremely difficult to decipher and is often shrouded with secrecy, and claims of proprietary protection. I have tried to track articles and technology specific reading materials as best as I can. Yet, nothing replaces the old adage that you should surround yourself with people who are smarter than you. As such, I engaged my network to help decipher this draft v. official ballot question, and found out the rest of the story.

Official ballots contain markings on the edges that tell the black box/tabulator that a ballot has been accepted for a specific race and then to count the votes. As my colleagues know, when I request a research project, I want the answer to be readable on a single screen of my i-phone. The i-phone screen explanation I received is here:

Without those marks, a sample ballot would simply be just an unusable ballot. To my astonishment, the same Counties that did not include the “sample ballot” designation, actually included official ballot customized marks (timing marks) on the ballots posted on the Secretary of State’s website. Click on the document below to see the unique ballot markings that were on the ballot created and approved by Olmsted County, and published by the Secretary of State on his website:

Olmsted Sample Ballot With Timing Marks

93KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

A snapshot of the manufacturers’ election manual provides an explantion of “timing marks” and a “code channel.”

As is public knowledge, ballot stock paper can be purchased in bulk by any member of the public. Do you need an envelope to put it in - click and edit here. It appears that certain county election officials have gone out of their way to provide a mechanism for bad actors to swap ballots during mailing or transportation, or ballot board processing where partisan oversight is absent. What about the ability to stuff ballots into drop boxes with forged absentee envelopes and applications?

The saying, “Make it Easy to Vote and Hard to Cheat” seems to have been replaced by, “Make it Easy to Vote, even when you want to Cheat.” After all, we don’t want to disenfanchise the cheaters.

Fortunately, there are concerned citizens who are willing to stand-up and report these irregularities. There is a process to report suspected voting violations to the County Attorney where the incident occurred. Complaints have now been submitted in Olmsted County, with others under review.

The content of the complaint is as follows:

VIOLATION:

Minn. Stat. §204B.43 which makes it unlawful for an election official to knowingly give, or permit a ballot to be printed, in a form other than that prescribed by law;

Minn. R. 8250.1810, Subp. 18, which mandates the format for Example Ballots the election official is required to follow for the 2024 general election.

The format of the 2024 General Election Example Ballot can be found here: https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/election-administration/example-ballots/

A copy of the required Example Ballot required by the Secretary of State is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

I visited the Minnesota Secretary of State Election & Voting website and followed the instructions for viewing my sample ballot for my home address as listed above. 

Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of the ballot that I viewed and downloaded from this website.  This “sample ballot” was created by xxxx County Elections and published by the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office on their website.

This ballot is not a proper sample ballot in that it does not comply with the requirements set forth in Minn. R. 8250.1810, Subp. 18 as follows:

• The ballot does not contain the required reference “Example” “Example Ballot” or “Sample.”

• The ballot contains ballot identification markings referred to as “Timing Marks” and “Code Channel.”  

• It is my understanding that these ballot identification markings allow an election tabulator to scan a ballot, read the ovals/votes and tabulate the final votes. 

• It is further my understanding that the Attached Exhibit B could be treated as an official ballot.

• An explanation of these ballot identification markings is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

The publication and distribution of improper Example Ballots such as the attached Exhibit B, by xxxxx County and the Minnesota Secretary of State violates Minn. Stat. §204B.43 as follows:

• They are knowingly giving official ballots to unauthorized individuals;

• They are permitting unauthorized individuals to download, print and distribute an official ballot. 

• It is public knowledge that blank ballots can be purchased by any member of the public, allowing them easy access to print official ballots for improper use in the general election.

The We Choose Us political network has now been popping up in Southern Minnesota as they campaign under the false flag of “Democracy Defense.” In some cases, their local members are being asked to escalate the temperature of public meetings to “show up en masse to events.” I have received first hand reports of We Choose Us members showing up at public meetings booing when questions were asked, and interrupting public comments from other citizens.

Who is “We Choose Us”

On May 2, 2023 “We Choose Us Action” was filed as an assumed name subordinate supported by its “fiscal sponsor” Faith in Minnesota - a 501(c)(4)1 As described by Influence Watch, “We Choose Us Action is fiscally sponsored by Faith in Minnesota, the political action arm of ISAIAH, an activist organization based in Minnesota that recruits left-of-center activists from church congregations in order to advance a number of left-of-center policy priorities.”

On May 5, 2023, “We Choose Us” was filed as an assumed name subordinate supported by its “fiscal sponsor”, ISAIAH, a member of the Faith in Action Network, a 501(c)(3) based in Washington D.C.

In Dark Money terminology, using these types of “project pairs” allows an organization to maximize the most useful characteristics of a 501(c)(3) non-profit, whose donors may write off their donations as tax deductible, and a 501(c)(4) group which may spend significantly more on lobbying. (In addition, tax laws make the 501(c)(3) organization much easier for private foundations to fund than a 501(c)(4). 2

Likewise, by using “pop-up”, or assumed name organizations, their fiscal sponsors can add another layer of anonymity to their activities.

As further reported by Influence Watch, and consistent with the dark nature of this structure, “There is no available financial information related to We Choose Us Action or We Choose Us.” One article from January, 2023, however, described the We Choose Us duo as follows, “The well-organized, slick campaign didn’t just spontaneously spring from the ground, however. It’s part of a $32 million nationwide campaign that began before the midterms…”

Enter Mackenzie Scott funnelling money into political causes in Minnesota

In March of this year, we saw a #mediabuzz over Scott’s grants 3of millions to at least 8 Minnesota organizations through her Yield Giving network. This organization boasts a total outlay of, “$17,300,000,000 to 2,300+ non-profit teams” throughout the Country. One of the benefited organizations funded by Scott’s network was a $2 million grant to ISAIAH, a Federation4 partner of Faith In Action.org. In the Yield Giving explanation, the ISAIAH grant was tagged with the following catagories - civic and social engagement, democracy, and race and ethnicity.

ISAIAH was then free to redeploy this grant money to its subordinate organizations, including We Choose Us. The watchdog organization, Influence Watch, describes the ISAIAH model as follows:

The Foundation uses religious coalitions to advance left-of-center activism and helps set up local activist groups which then hide their connection to the Foundation, allowing it to be “invisible” in order to make its campaigns appear to be grassroots-led.

Consistent with this local activist smoke-screen model, We Choose Us held a Democracy Defense Summit in June of this year. During this summit, they trained and planned for the deployment of local citizens to act as conduits to promote the political narrative of their fiscal sponsor, ISAIAH; using Google money from the one of the wealthiest individuals in the Country.

Deployment of the “Grass-roots” smoke-screen

We are now witnessing the deployment of the “grass-roots” representatives of the We Choose Us narrative network. The image below shows the County-specific action plan being implemented by this well-funded, and well organized, political messaging effort.

Recently, We Choose Us grass-roots front people appeared in St. Louis County. More political narrative messaging events are planned between now and the November 5th election. Just a word to the wise, the individuals that are being deployed as concerned citizens are being used as a smoke-screen for a much larger purpose. While these individuals may very well be good-intentioned, they are proably unaware that they are part of a scheme to leverage dark money to promote a political cause and narrative.

Finally, in case you continue to question whether the We Choose Us network is politically active and motivated please check out this facebook post from October 27, 2022.

“Concerns have been raised about the security of the modeming of results from polling placess to a central reporting location.”

See the documents for more details:

November 22, 2022 email to David Maeda

157KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This document was disclosed in response to a Government Data request and was the first indication that there was a proposal to eliminate modem usage.

Download

A follow-up request then disclosed the proposed statutory change and the rationale behind this change

Proposal And Rationale for eliminating modem usage

162KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This is a must read! This statement sounds familiar: "The heightened concern about election security also should be considered."

Download

This diagram from Election Systems & Software provides a visual depiction of the flow of data from the internal wireless modems in the ES&S DS200’s, through the cloud, and to the regional center.

Hennepin, Anoka, Washington, Rice, Cass, Stearns, and Carver Counties in Minnesota all have ES&S equipment with active modem usage. How is this possible? These counties rely upon a little known loophole to the modem ban they refer to as the “early election-results program.” With the historic blessing of the Office of the Secretary of State, these counties rely on a limited exception in subd. 2 of the statute which they claim is a safe-harbor for modem usage. This “loophole”2 references the use of electronic transmission of “the accumulated tally for each device to a central reporting location . . .”

The Minnesota state legislature should promptly review the risks associated with continued modem usage in our elections, and remove any ambiguity that “no connection by modem is permitted” in Minnesota elections. As described below, some in the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office agree that this modem loophole should be eliminated.

Earlier this year, the federally funded Elections Infrastructure ISAC, issued a stern warning in a guide entitled the Essential Guide to Election Security.  Within that guide is a section dedicated to the risks and threats of the very same modem-based unofficial election night reporting process used in Minnesota.

The most daunting risk statement found in one bullet point warns of:

“Difficulty associated with finding, and rolling back, improper changes found after the fact.”

Wow, election officials may not even know that they’ve been hacked, and it may be difficult to roll back these changes even if identified.

Even more recently, in July of this year, the CISA and FBI issued another warning that we should expect, “Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on election infrastructure, or adjacent infrastructure that support election operations…” This report continues:

“These low-level (DDos) attacks, which are expected to continue as we approach the 2024 U.S. general election, could disrupt the availability of some election-related functions, like voter look-up tools or unofficial election night reporting, during the election cycle but will not impact voting itself.” (emphasis added).

Academics also agree that we must protect our elections from cyber attacks or #votehacks:

• In a 2016 Harvard University Publication, "Why American Elections Are Flawed (and How to Fix Them), the author articulates the risks of the “vulnerability of electronic records to hacking.” In this author’s words, this incudes the threat that “Vote counts are fiddled.” Further insight calls out “vintage software” used in voting machines which makes them, “particularly vulnerable to external cyberattack by foreign powers and terrorist groups.”

• In 2018, the National Academy of Sciences released a report entitled, “Securing the Vote: Protecting American Democracy.” As highlighted in Chapter 7 of this report, “Unfortunately, our current system is vulnerable to internal and external threats. . . . recent events make it clear that our system of voting must evolve3 in order to also protect against external actors who wish to undermine confidence in democratic institutions. . . It is difficult to secure the electronic systems used in voting even now.” This chapter concludes as follows: “If the challenges currently facing our election systems are ignored, we risk an erosion of confidence in our elections system and in the integrity of our election processes.”

• In a powerfully written 2020 article in the Georgetown Law Technology Review, the authors lay out a sobering overview of the risks of computer-based technology: “Computer-based methods are subject to “hacking”, that is, the replacement of legitimate vote-counting software with a computer program that changes (some fraction of) the votes in favor of the hacker’s preferred party. Hacking can be performed remotely (even if the machines are supposedly “never connected to the Internet”) and it is very difficult to detect. Voters and election administrators see nothing out of the ordinary. “

• One these same authors continues his honest exposure of these vulnarabilities in his 2023 Article entitled, “Is Internet Voting Trustworthy? The Science and the Policy Battles.” I apologize for the length of this quote, but his words are so succinct:

  “Twenty-first century computers are extremely complex, with many layers of hardware and millions of lines of software. These layers are susceptible to design mistakes - bugs. Some of these bugs are exploitable security vulnerabilities that leave the compute vulnerable to attack. The attack (typically) comes in the form of unexpected input provided by the attacker, which confuses the software into running programs supplies by the attacker. These attacker-supplied programs can perform all manner of malicious acts, such as altering votes in an organized way as designed by the attacker.”             

As these academic articles confirm, the use of modems increases the risk of #votehacks by bad actors. Yet, the Secretary of State’s official position is to support the continued use of modems in elections.

I have, however, obtained EXCLUSIVE documents confirming that some level-headed members of the Office of the Secretary of State’s staff actually support eliminating the modem loophole. This proposal was unearthed through a government data request which disclosed a November 22, 2022 email to David Maeda, Director of Elections for the State of Minnesota. Through a follow-up inquiry, a copy of the actual legislative proposal was obtained. Sure enough, the internal document contained a specific proposal to amend Minn. Stat. section 206.845, Subd. 2 to delete any reference to the use of modems, or electronic connections in our election process. In its place, language would be added to the statute which states, “the election judges shall transfer the record of the results by disk, tape, or other physical means of communication to the central reporting office.” This legislative change would close the modem loophole in Minnesota.

I will be posting a copy of the email communication and the proposed language of this statutory change for paid subscribers in a separate post. Any current member (or candidate) of the Minnesota House or Senate that is interested in co-authoring a bill to close the modem loophole can contact me, and I will provide the exact language as recommended internally by the Secretary of State’s Office.

This is a known and clearly identified #votehacks risk threatening the security and integrity of our elections. The risk of using the modem-based early election-results program has been identified by many of the lettered federal agencies - the Elections Infrastructure ISAC, CISA and the FBI. The vulnerability to #votehacks resulting from having internet connections in our voting system is clearly identified in publications from some of our countries most prestigious Universities - Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, and the National Academy of Sciences.

Still pinned to the top of my Benda for Commonsense facebook page is a link to this Politico article - which describes, “The voting machine hacking threat you probably haven’t heard about.” Well, now you know about this modem loophole, and the high security risks of #votehacks that this practice injects into the Minnesota election process.

Please, help spread the word to our elected officials and demand that they CLOSE THE MODEM LOOPHOLE.

In an attempt to obtain some main street perspective on this issue, I leveraged my summer interactions with this age group to conduct an informal poll of my own. I have interviewed just over a dozen zoomers asking three simple questions:

1. Where do you hear about news/current events.

2. How do you learn more about news/current events; and

3. What influencers do you trust.

BACKGROUND

As I was compiling my results, a poll was released by the Center for the American Experiment. One significent finding was that over seven in ten young people (18 to 34) closely follow both national and state politics. This report confirmed what I was hearing - they are paying attention.

Why it matters: 41 Million Votes is a lot. While Gen Z adults distrust America’s political institutions, they participate in many political activities at similar or higher rates than older Americans.

In his seminal book, The Fourth Turning is Here, Neil Howe provides an overview of those individuals born between 1982-2005.2 Howe concludes that this Generation is the next “Hero” generation and will follow in the stead of the GI Generation/Greatest Generation. While his book does not distinguish the Zoomer/GenZ from the millennial generation, it does provide invaluable insight into the future of this group. While is is hard to summarize Howe’s exhaustive findings, here is an excerpt:

In their aspirations for the nation, they've staked out a political agenda that borders on the revolutionary. While all generations express rising discontent about America's current direction, Millennials [GenZ] are the most likely (on both the left and the right) to believe that the current regime is fundamentally broken and needs to be overhauled if not replaced. More than older generations, they think the solution may require granting extraordinary powers to one side and discarding precedents and procedures that impede the establishment of a new regime.

In short, this generation matters to the future of America.

Back to my summer adventure (Poll Results)

First Question - Where do you hear about Current Events:

These are few of the catch-phrases that jumped out:

• I “Ride the news.”

• I “follow the algorithm to see where it takes me.”

• I “hear then research.”

• I “follow the feed.”

• I “stumble and then google.”

• I “rely on brain rot.” (meaning entertainment feeds)

What Platforms?

Instagram = 8

Snap chat = 5

TicToc = 5

Podcast = 5

YouTube = 4

Newsfeed = 2

Facebook (local) = 2

X (twitter) = 1

Reddit = 1

All participants reported that they received their information in a rolling format. From social media, talking their friends and co-workers, or simply seeing a news clip in passing on television.

Second Question- How do you learn more about news/current events?

Google was an almost universal answer. This only scratched the surface, however, as they all wanted to truth-test what they were hearing. As one participant stated, “If it sounds like bullshit, I’ll go to safari.” Others said they will talk to peers on a topic before going into deep dive mode. One participant has a system to use multiple search engines to check a topic as they clearly do not “trust” the algorithms that try to tell them what to believe. This theme continued, “I hear then research. Usually with a you-tube deep dive.”

If an issue peaks their curiosity, they are very deliberate, persistent and patient in finding an answer. Peers, family, and their own personal BS detection process were paramount in finding some semblance of “true information.”

Third Question - What influencers do you trust.

One participant only “trusts” those experts that do not appear to have an agenda, “no face, no credentials, and not combative.” No one had a final authoritative figure or source that they trusted, although they surprisingly rely heavily upon person-to-person exchanges. Most were skeptical of the “depressing” on-line news that they are inundated with.

The other theme I noted was that their search for information was intertwined with their need to continue to receive entertainment value. There is not a lot of patience for pontification or long-winded diatribes. After all, this generation created the phrase, “OK Boomer” to tell the world, “stop the blah blah.”

They will listen, but not be talked down to.

MORE BACKGROUND

Before you lambast my unscientific polling and lack of valid findings, I respond that my objective was simply to get a feel for the engagement process this age group uses to obtain information about the world around them. There is plenty of recent reporting on this topic including:

• A May 2024 report from the American Press Institute entitled: Election insights: Understanding public preference for news coverage for 2024. One conclusion in this report: “…people are worried about the news containing misinformation and amplifying divisions. About half of adults say they are extremely or very concerned about news organizations reporting inaccurate information (53%). Almost as many worry news outlets will report unverified information (47%) or focus too much on divisions or controversies (48%).”

• Another report from the American Press Insistute entitled: Gen Z and Millennial use a variet of media to get news. As reported, “Forty percent of Gen Z and Millennials either text, share, comment, or talk about news with family and friends at least once per day while only 27% do the same with other social media accounts or news organizations’ websites at least once a day.”

• The Pew Research Institute recently released an inciteful and detailed report entitled: How Americans Get News on TikTok, X, Facebook and Instagram. Of interest for zoomers, their age group is much more likely to see breaking news on these core social media platforms.

• Another Pew Research Institute report found that Americans most often get local political news from friends and family, local news outlets, and social media. While this report does not provide a generational break-down, the survey results are as current as possible, being just released last month.

Takeaways:

To reach GenZ, there must be be a strong presence on these platforms. Social Media – the Local TV for the Next Generation? Don’t assume dismissiveness means that they are not listening.

Recognize that memes = news. All messaging must be quick and entertaining. A meme is definitely worth a couple hundred words. I have downloaded an app that allows me to create memes, like the one above:) While I’m pretty confident my memes may get some “OK X’r” eye-rolls, I am trying to take my own advice.

Millenials are looking for influencers - One the surprising takeaway from my overview was the fact that Gen Z voters do trust their friends and family almost universally. This conclusion was echoed by Howe, “A growing share of Milliennnial teens chose a parent rather than a celebrity as their role model.” Whatever generation you are in, you can have an impact. The Harris presidential campaign is trying to supplant personal influencers with social media “influencers”. They have formed a new PAC called voters of tomorrow and are trying to tap into the influencer world. Don’t be discouraged or intimidated to not engage, we can be influencers.

We must listen to this “hero” generation, as articulated by Howe, “Of all generations pushing society through the Crisis era, [Gen Z]Millennials will thereby become the most propulsive. Let elder Boomers conceive the visionary ends. Let midlife Xers furnish the practical means. But then let young-adult [Gen Z]Millenials, working together, furnish the critical mass that moves their entire society rapidly in one direction.”

They want a cause to follow, they just don’t know what that is yet. One group is trying to tap into their feeling by trying to “bringing back the joy” Yet, it is more likely that this generation is legitimately worried about their future. As reported in a recent poll of Minnesota’s youth, “Ninety percent of 18- to 34-year-olds in Minnesota said their generation is worse off economically compared to their parents!” If this anxiety continues they will likely trend towards mainstreet/common-sense causes.

CONCLUSION:

Gen Z has embodied a new twist to the old phrase “trust but verify.” Their version is, Distrust Until Verified. Having grown up in the world of economic and now political algorythms and psy-ops efforts, they are well-trained skeptics.

There is little trust outside of personal connections. They are extremely skeptical of big-tech controlling their feeds, and have adapted by creating their own individualized systems of truth-testing. They do not like to be “messaged/lectured” by authority figures. Yet, they will listen to their friends and family, but only on their terms.

Their social media entertainment is intertwined with how they get their news. They can easily catch current events between gaming, scrolling insta, or just riding the brain rot.

This generation will be saddled with tremendous responsibility in the future, so we need to bring them into the conversation early to help them verify what is real versus what makes them “feel good.” In the end, I am somewhat relieved that the world will not end if my GenX generation does not change the world. We just need to control the chaos until the GenZ/Millenial heros are ready to rumble.

I am now waiving my hands and letting you know that your mute button may be turning on again soon, triggered by our own state officials. A combination of post-pandemic laws passed by the Minnesota legislative trifecta are now in place to allow government officials to police your activities, and to effectively mute your on-line activities.

The first mute-button (Minn. Stat. § 609.771) involves the restriction on the use of Deep Fake Technology to influence an election. As long ago as 2020, tech experts were discussing how easy it was to create a deepfake meme through social media platforms. Just recently, YouTube has made it easier to make a takedown request for a post that uses a likeness without consent. In considering whether to takedown the video, YouTube has established a complaint process and has identified a variety of factors that will be considered.

Likewise, law enforcement officials in Minnesota (Attorney General, County Attorney, or City Attorney) are now empowered to determine whether a broadly defined set of technology representations are a “deep fake” and whether they were disseminated with the “intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of the election.” This restriction kicks in on August 7th, or 90 days prior to the November 5th election. Memers and bloggers beware, there is no defense or exception for humor or entertainment value.

Our own Secretary of State has a handy guide encouraging anyone to contact local law enforcement and seek court intervention if they feel that a deep fake is in play. Interestingly, the Secretary of State uses the phrase “widely shares” (rather than “disseminates”). This suggests to me that they intend to enforce this law not only against the person/entity that created the meme, but also anyone who posts, shares or even likes it. The social media police will certainly be watching your feeds carefully for every post, like and share that you click on.

I expect various efforts at silencing conservative social media influencers, either by the government, or on behalf of a candidate. Even the White House has resorted to accusing “right wing critics” of promoting “cheap fakes” against President Biden. With the current status of the election, expect depictions of President Biden in a memory care unit to be met with . . . resistance.

Secretary Simon, with the support of the DFL/dark money machine, can bird-dog in the complaints in the name of “Strengthening Democracy.” Attorney General Ellingson, or other activist County Attorneys, will voice that they have “no choice” but to protect democracy and pursue enforcement. Even the threat of an investigative witch hunt is daunting, as the alleged perp can receive a sentence of up to a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.

Next up in the mute arsenal is Minn. Stat. § 211B.075 entitled, “Intimidation and Interference with the Voting Process.” There are three new violations established by this statute, Intimidation (“Subd. 1”), Deceptive Practices within 60 day of an election (“Subd. 2”), and Interference with registration or voting (“Subd. 3”).

Under Subd. 1, the activities that are prohibited are the direct or indirect use of force, coercion, violence, restraint, damage, harm, or loss, including loss of employment or economic reprisal… against a person with the intent to compel that person to…. vote for or against a candidate.” I have highlighted the term coercion as there is an extremely fine line between policing political speech and protecting first amendment rights.

Imagine this charge against you under Subd. 1, “use of indirect coercion against a person with the intent to compel a vote for a candidate and against a different candidate.” Simply the use of “indirect coercion” puts you in the cross-hairs. How people react to your words and actions will matter as the standard is whether your actions would cause a reasonable person to feel intimidated. I honestly think that uttering the words “election integrity” or “election transparency” in a public place would trigger enough angst that many in the room would claim to be intimidated. While I do not think that is reasonable, it is reality. Please note that establishing intent to intimidate is not required, “The Plaintiff does not need to show that the defendant intended to cause the victim to feel intimidated.”

Under Subd. 2, you are in trouble if you “cause information to be transmitted” that intends to impede a person from exercising their right to vote. For the hand-vote advocates reading this post, this includes information regarding “the manner of holding an election.” Likewise, Subd. 3 has a nice twist, you cannot impede someone who is registering voters or “aiding another person in casting a vote.”

The final mute-trigger, Minn. Stat. §211B.076 criminalizes intimidation and interference with the job duties of election officials. Again, the bar for “intimidation” is not high - simply direct or indirect use or threat of coercion, or economic loss (including loss of employment) of an election official. Certainly, the narrative has been that demanding transparency in the administration of elections is a form of intimidation and bullying. As I will explore in a future Substack, this narrative is set to ramp up in the months to come. This particular law feels a bit personal:(

Offering further intrigue, the last two mute-buttons discussed here (.075 and .076) contain a few unique provisions that should cause further concern. The first is titled, “Vicarious Liability; conspiracy.” I wonder if this co-conspirator liability provision was added to leave open the possibility of broader legal actions against right-leaning organizations, even political parties. Couple this with the broad investigative powers imposed under Subd. 5(c) and we could see a flurry of lawfare activities in Minnesota. In short, Minn. Stat. §8.31 provides a summary civil law process to obtain information quickly, or face district court contempt proceedings.

Back to the original “you’re on mute” quote of the year for 2020, according to Forbes, in December 2019 Zoom had 10 million users daily. This number quickly boomed to 300 million users as the lock-downs unfolded. Starting on May 15, 2020 the Minnesota Judicial Branch, like most courts in the United States moved swiftly to pivot to some type of remote proceedings. My world quickly transitioned to remote hearings and meetings with clients and adverse parties. It appears that this trend is here to stay, as most of my court appearances continue to be through Zoom. Whether this trend is positive, is still up for debate.

Likewise, we must have a dialogue on whether our government should have their own mute buttons, with heavy investigate powers and civil and criminal penalties. As one prominent politician stated, “There is truth and there are lies…each of us has a duty… to defend the truth and defeat the lies.” If those in power define the truth (or actively shield the truth), should they also be empowered to use the power of the state that they control to “defeat the lies?”

Matt Benda

Albert Lea Attorney and Community Advocate

I did not expect that a series of requests for public data sent during the whirlwind of my campaign would propel me on a trajectory through the maze of bureaucracy, searching for transparency surrounding the task of counting votes in our elections.  I have been documenting this effort through a series of writings I have labelled the “transparencyproject”.  A full compilation of these updates can be found on my profile page at my law office.  Starting in October, 2023 I also found my way to the Substack platform (@bendasense) which provides a wonderful outlet to create and distribute substantive content greater that 170 characters.  My non-profit “Benda for Congress” has now evolved into “Benda for Commonsense” which I describe as, “my outlet to tilt against group think, with the goal of bringing some small-town common-sense to the world!!

I am currently following the bread-crumbs that slip out from behind the curtain of secrecy in our election process.  I recently realized that I am effectively performing “investigative lawyering”, like “investigative journalism.”  I described the heightened need for this scrutiny in one of my previous posts: 

Election officials hold election data in trust on behalf of the public, not to the exclusion of the public.  Transparency from, and accountability of our election officials should be embedded into the system.  The rapid evolution of technology in the election process quickens the need to normalize public transparency.

My current legal journey started in August 2022 in Rice County District Court and is now up for review by the Minnesota Supreme Court.  This experience has provided clarity to me that we must insist on an atmosphere of transparency and accountability regarding all public institutions. 

This legal action focuses on what I consider the illegal use of modems to transmit early election results to the Secretary of State’s Office.  Counties are authorized to transmit early election results from precincts to the County Office.  That, however, is the end of the line for the transmission of these results.  In what I advocate is a clear violation of the law, Hennepin, Anoka, Washington, Rice, Cass, Stearns, and Carver Counties all take the additional step of transmitting these early results to the Secretary of State.  I started questioning this process over two years ago - why is everything so secretive?   When are these early results transmitted to the Secretary and who has access to view them?  Sunshine is clearly needed!  I will be asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to allow this scrutiny to continue.

I hope to inspire others to also become engaged, to ask questions, and not simply accept the bureaucratic status quo.  The #transparencyproject is a public hashtag that symbolizes my journey.  Please feel free to use it for your own journey.  For me, the quest for transparency and accountability will continue…

Matt Benda

Albert Lea Attorney and Community Advocate

As the wheels of justice grind on, we are quickly ticking closer to the 2024 election with a known cyber-security threat looming over Minnesota’s election infrastructure.  As reported in the Star Tribune, ten counties in Minnesota, including Rice County, use modems to transmit unofficial election results.  Our lawsuit exposed that these early results are transmitted outside the official Secretary of State secure portal to their Election Reporting System (ERS) database.  These early results are made available to the public, and “Various media outlets acquire the public results data from the Secretary’s website.” 

Alarmingly, the federally funded Elections Infrastructure ISAC, recently issued a stern warning in its recent guide entitled the Essential Guide to Election Security.  Within that guide is a section dedicated to the risks and threats of the very same unofficial election night reporting process used in Minnesota under scrutiny in our legal action.  Excerpts from this report speak for themselves:

The systems used for reporting and publishing are likely networked, and, in many cases, have public facing websites or application program interfaces (APIs).  The outputs are the unofficial election results, typically published on a website, often in multiple formats such as extensible markup language (XML), hypertext markup language (HTML), portable document format (PDF), and comma-separated values (CSV). There is likely a direct and persistent network connection between the published site and the internet, though the official record of the results may be kept on a system that is not persistently connected to the internet.

This guide continues:

…the consequences of an attack that would impact unofficial election results reporting and publishing could be significant, resulting in loss of confidence in the correctly reported election results when they are finally posted. 

While there are seven separate areas of concern, one of the most significant risks identified in this guide is that election officials may not even be able to identify, let alone remedy any “improper changes” to the vote tally (emphasis added):

Difficulty associated with finding, and rolling back, improper changes found after the fact.

Another non-partisan organization, Free Speech for People, coordinated the issuance of a technical letter on the risks of wireless connectivity which advocates that modems in voting systems should be prohibited.  As stated in that letter,

[wireless connectivity] profoundly weakens voting system security and will introduce very real opportunities to remotely attack election systems. Therefore, we strongly advise you to maintain a prohibition on wireless networking capability in the VVSG 2.0.

As I was quoted in the Star Tribune, “the “riskreward” of using modems at any point in the process “doesn’t add up.” “That [increased] risk profile isn’t outweighed by getting a few early results,”    Despite these well-documented risks, local election officials and our Minnesota Secretary of State continue to utilize modems, even in machines with out-of-life Windows 7 software.   

Minnesota has a specific statute that authorizes Court scrutiny and correction of any error relating to a duty concerning an election – Minn. Stat. §204B.44(a)(4).  Given the continued usage of electronic voting machines in our elections, and the continually increasing risk of cyber-attacks, we should be able to count on the judicial system to intervene if/when such an attack occurs.  Our government’s short-sighted position is that the scope of this statute does not apply to “fixing” problems with our election machines.  If the ruling in our case is not reversed, our elections could be left in limbo with no court remedy to wrap up a voting tabulation process that is side-tracked by manipulation or electronic error. 

As voting technology evolves, we must demand that those entrusted with implementing the voting process do so through an open and transparent process.  The question of whether Minnesota courts have proper jurisdiction over these types of situations is a critical question that I look forward to arguing to the top court in Minnesota. 

Stay tuned!

Matt Benda

Albert Lea Attorney and Community Advocate