Purpose

• To change how data about election judges’ political party affiliation is handled and who may access it. The bill updates Minnesota data-practices rules to require a record of each election judge’s major political party affiliation (or non-affiliation) and to clarify access/sharing of that information, including potential public access.

Main Provisions

• Section 1: Adds Subdivision 10 to Minnesota Statutes 136.07. It states that the party affiliation of election judges is classified as provided in Minnesota Statutes 204B21, subdivision 4.

• Section 2: Adds Subdivision 4 to Minnesota Statutes 204B21. It creates two parts:

  • a) Each appointing authority must maintain a list of all election judges that indicates each judge’s major political party affiliation (or a statement that the judge does not affiliate with a major party). A list created under this section is described as public data on individuals.
  • b) The lists described in subdivisions 1 and 2 are not public data on individuals. (Note: This appears to contradict part a); the bill text contains conflicting language about public vs. non-public status.

• Section 3: Repeals Minnesota Statutes 204B21, subdivision 3, which previously allowed sharing of a judge’s major party affiliation with other election judges in the same precinct for party-balance verification, with restrictions on use.

Significant Changes and Implications

• Data classification shift (potentially): The bill attempts to classify election judge major party affiliation in a new way, and it explicitly references making a list public data on individuals, though the text also contains a clause stating the lists are not public data on individuals. This creates ambiguity about whether the information would be publicly accessible.
• Removal of prior sharing rule: By repealing the older subdivision that allowed sharing of party affiliation among judges for balance verification (and limited use), the bill changes how this information can be used and who can access it.
• Administrative requirement: If the public-access aspect is intended to take effect, appointing authorities would have to create and maintain a public-facing or publicly accessible (depending on interpretation) list of election judges and their major party affiliations.

Practical Considerations

• Transparency vs. privacy: Making election judge party affiliations more accessible could improve transparency but raises privacy and safety concerns for individuals.
• Implementation needs: Counties or other appointing authorities would need processes to compile, maintain, and respond to requests for this data, and they would need to resolve the conflicting language about public vs. non-public status.
• Clarification required: The text contains contradictory provisions (public data vs. not public data). Clarification from the legislature would be needed to determine the final status.

Potential Impacts on Stakeholders

• Election offices: Must maintain the new list and resolve data-access rules; may face new reporting or disclosure requirements.
• Election judges: May be affected by visibility of their party affiliation; some may have privacy or safety concerns.
• Public and researchers: May gain new access to information about election judges, depending on final interpretation and any applicable privacy protections.

Notable Definitions in Play

• election judge
• major political party / major party affiliation
• appointing authority
• party balance requirements
• public data on individuals
• data practices (Minnesota Statutes references 136.07 and 204B21)

Source Note

• The text includes two seemingly conflicting subsections about whether the new lists are public data on individuals or not public data, which would require legislative clarification.

Relevant Terms - election judge - party affiliation - major political party - appointing authority - public data on individuals - not public data on individuals - party balance requirements - Minnesota Statutes 136.07 - Minnesota Statutes 204B21 - Subd 4 / Subdivision 4 - data practices - precinct - disclosure - access - repeal (204B21 Subd 3)