A Rebuttal to Appeal by Minneapolis DFL of Fateh Endorsement Revocation

On Friday morning, September 5, the Minneapolis DFL publicized its appeal to the Minnesota DFL (MN DFL) State Executive Committee (SEC), asking the SEC to overturn the August 22 decision of the MN DFL Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Committee (CBRC).  The CBRC had revoked the endorsement of Omar Fateh for Mayor, and had placed the Minneapolis DFL under probation for two years.

In its appeal, the Minneapolis DFL argues several points, including but not limited to:

• The composition of the CBRC, and its decision-making process, was tainted
• The CBRC asserted findings of fact that were not substantiated by evidence
• The CBRC does not have the authority to rescind Fateh’s endorsement, and exceeded its authority over the Minneapolis DFL

This article responds to several points in the Minneapolis DFL appeal.

CBRC Integrity in Composition and Process

Argument:

The Minneapolis DFL asserts that several CBRC members had actual or apparent conflicts of interest.  Its website announcement about its appeal states, “…the committee retained several members with profound conflicts of interest during both the hearing and in deliberations.  These conflicted members irreparably tainted the process — both the hearing itself and the committee’s closed-door deliberations”.  Fateh, his supporters, and the Minneapolis DFL, routinely cite private deliberations as if they are nefarious.

Response:

• The Minneapolis DFL does not name conflicted CBRC members, nor what their conflicts were. The Minneapolis DFL does not say how many people had such conflicts.
• Regarding “party insiders overturned Fateh’s endorsement behind closed doors”:
  • The CBRC is not comprised of “party insiders”. CBRC members are elected every two years by their peers, from party units around the state.  The next elections will occur in the spring of 2026.
  • According to its standard procedure for managing challenges, following a public hearing, in which parties have equal time to present their arguments, the CBRC enters closed deliberations. The CBRC adhered to standard procedure in this case.

Findings of fact not supported by evidence

Argument

The Minneapolis DFL says that there was no evidence supporting CBRC findings that:

• The entire Ward 5 credentials book was lost by the Minneapolis DFL
• The master check-in sheet was not properly secured, resulting in the opportunity to replace, delete or alter ballot IDs, and that the official credentials real-time digital spreadsheet was unsecured and was accessed by campaigns.

The Minneapolis DFL argues that these allegations were presented only in challenges, and were not raised during the August 17 hearing, thus do not constitute evidence.

The Minneapolis DFL also argues that credentials challenges were resolved by the convened body, and that the CBRC has no authority to override the body’s decisions about those challenges.

Response 1: Strength of evidence

The full body of evidence included sworn challenges, sworn affidavits and sworn testimony at the hearing.  The Minneapolis DFL questions challengers’ attestations that everything they said was true yet provides no evidence supporting its claims.

At least two challenges concerned the Ward 5 documents.  One said that at the convention, Minneapolis DFL Credentials Chair (Jaime Salome) publicly stated that Ward 5 had not submitted its documents, and when the challenger attempted to present refuting video and text evidence, she was not permitted to speak.  Instead Salome asserted, “Well, I don’t have them”.  Another Ward 5 challenger stated that just a few hours earlier, Salome showed the challenger a copy of those documents, which she later said that Ward 5 had not submitted and which she didn’t have.

This author agrees that the CBRC did not hear filed challenges, or testimony on August 17, which asserted lack of security for the master check-in sheet or the credentials sheet.  The CBRC report would have been stronger if it had cited evidence supporting that finding.

Response 2:  Minneapolis DFL arguments are not relevant.

The CBRC did not cite unsecured spreadsheets or credentials challenges as reasons for revoking the Fateh endorsement.  Rather, it revoked Fateh’s endorsement because there had been no valid ballot for mayor.  It referenced two findings which the Minneapolis DFL does not dispute: 1) The electronic system had failed to count 176 votes on the first mayoral ballot, and 2) The second ballot omitted the name of an eligible candidate.

Furthermore, the CBRC did not overturn the convened body’s decisions about credentials challenges.  It is unclear why the Minneapolis DFL repeatedly asserts that the CBRC does not have authority to overturn these decisions, as the CBRC did not overturn them.

 CBRC Cannot Override the Body’s Decision Endorsing Fateh for Mayor

Argument:

The Minneapolis DFL argues that the convened body was “well aware of many of the issues with the electronic ballot” and when given the option to retake the first ballot on paper, voted against doing so.  The Minneapolis DFL argues that as the convened body decided to advance only the top two candidates to the second ballot, by overturning Fateh’s endorsement on these grounds, the CBRC improperly substitutes its own judgement for that of the body.

Response 1:  The body was not informed

At the time of the convention, the body did not know the following, because the Minneapolis DFL only made this information public on August 15, more than a month after the convention adjourned:

• The electronic system had not upgraded alternates, which violated the rules the body had adopted.
• The electronic system had failed to count 176 valid ballots, and that had those ballots been counted, a third candidate, DeWayne Davis, would have received more than 20% of the votes. Thus the body did not know that it was violating its own rule, which said that candidates receiving more than 20% of first ballot votes would advance to Ballot 2.

Response 2:  Who could vote?

Only those with blue badges could vote on the motion to retake the first ballot, but the CBRC found, and the Minneapolis DFL did not dispute, that many upgraded alternates did not receive blue badges.

The CBRC exceeded its authority over the Minneapolis DFL.

Argument.  The Minneapolis DFL argues that:

• The CBRC has no authority to prohibit the Minneapolis DFL from reconvening to reconsider a mayoral endorsement. Specifically it argues that:
  • Any decision about recalling the convention lies only within the purview of the Minneapolis DFL Central Committee and Executive Committee
  • By prohibiting the Minneapolis DFL from recalling the convention, the CBRC prohibits delegates from endorsing, and imposes a “no endorsement” outcome, abrogating delegates’ will.
• The CBRC has no authority to place a DFL party unit “on probation”. Specifically, the Minneapolis DFL argues that:
  • The CBRC has no authority to impose a “free-floating supervision of the Minneapolis DFL”, particularly since the CBRC did not find that any convention volunteers behaved improperly.  It also argues that as the challenges were related to a single event, the July 19 convention, the CBRC has no authority to place the Minneapolis DFL on probation for two years.
  • The MN DFL Bylaws authorize the existence of the Minneapolis DFL, and only the DFL State Central Committee, or delegates to the State Convention, can change these Bylaws. Thus the CBRC cannot impose any restrictions on the Minneapolis DFL
  • The CBRC did not clearly define what it means by “probation”, and what the Minneapolis DFL can and cannot do during the probationary period.

Response 1:  Authority of the Minneapolis DFL

In April 2025, the Minneapolis DFL Executive Committee called an “emergency meeting” to override its Ward 2 Committee’s decision about the Ward 2 convention date.  Ward 2 leadership then sued the Minneapolis DFL Executive Committee, alleging that it had exceeded its authority.  On social media and in legal proceedings, the Minneapolis DFL argued that it absolutely had the authority to override its Ward Committees’ decisions.  The judge ruled that the matter was not legal but political, because it concerned DFL internal documents and rules, and refrained from providing petitioners’ relief.

Five months later, August 2025, the Minneapolis DFL argues that the CBRC has no authority to override Minneapolis DFL decisions.  While the circumstances are not identical, it appears that the Minneapolis DFL claims total authority over everything, up and down.  The Minneapolis DFL may overrule decisions of subordinate units, but the MN DFL may not override the Minneapolis DFL.

Response 2:  “Probation”

This author agrees that the CBRC did not define the term ‘probation’, nor did it specify what the Minneapolis DFL may or may not do during the probationary period.  This author agrees that the CBRC did not establish that convention volunteers had acted improperly.

However, this author previously suggested that the MN DFL conduct a thorough impartial investigation of the convention, particularly related to challenges concerning credentials and upgraded alternates.  This author noted that only the MN DFL has access to the necessary documents.  Former MN DFL Chair Mike Erlandson argued similarly, asking the MN DFL to investigate the planning and execution of the convention, to determine if any involved individuals had acted improperly. The CBRC did not establish improper behavior because it does not have the necessary investigative tools.

General

Arguments

In its introductory paragraphs, the Minneapolis DFL says that challengers “made extraordinary claims, and sought extraordinary remedies”.  It says that some challenges were fraudulent, and that challengers’ remedies ranged from overturning endorsements, abolishing the Minneapolis DFL, and barring certain volunteers from the party.

In its concluding paragraphs, the Minneapolis DFL argues that the CBRC’s decisions undermined the integrity of the DFL and fomented widespread feelings of betrayal and mistrust among party members in Minneapolis’ urban core.  The Minneapolis DFL warns that because of the CBRC decision, the party risks losing statewide races, as the MN DFL depends on its Minneapolis urban core for money, volunteers and votes.

The Minneapolis DFL then asks the SEC to:

• Either restore DFL endorsement of Omar Fateh for Mayor or allow the Minneapolis DFL to hold another mayoral endorsing convention this year. (The July 19 convention cost $55k, and thousands of volunteer hours, thus it is by no means clear how the Minneapolis DFL would pay for a do-over)
• Either overturn the “probation”, or state what conditions the Minneapolis DFL must meet during the probationary period
• Remove all the CBRC’s findings of fact related to credentialing.

Response 1:  “Extraordinary claims and remedies”

This author disputes the Minneapolis DFL use of the word ‘extraordinary’ and disputes Minneapolis DFL assertions about what challengers claimed:

• Challengers were required to attest to truthfulness, and the Minneapolis DFL does not say which challenges were fraudulent.
• While the Minneapolis DFL probably disagrees, this author believes that the July 19 convention was plagued with multiple procedural irregularities. CBRC Co-Chair Tim O’Brien told a reporter that it was highly unusual for a convention to receive so many challenges.  It is not “extraordinary” to ask the MN DFL to invalidate every action, including endorsements, from a convention plagued by so many disputes and alleged irregularities.
• Many challengers begged the MN DFL to stop endorsing for Minneapolis municipal offices; Governor Walz recently called for the same. Such pleas are now routine, as DFL endorsing conventions in Minneapolis are often fractious and sometimes violent. As the purpose of the Minneapolis DFL is to endorse candidates for Minneapolis municipal offices, ending DFL endorsement for these seats would end the reason for the Minneapolis DFL to exist. So yes, many challengers asked the MN DFL to “abolish” the Minneapolis DFL, even if they did not use that word.  But as this has become a routine request, it is hardly “extraordinary”, and may well be the simplest and most elegant solution to these recurring disputes and difficulties.
• The Minneapolis DFL asserts that some challengers called to bar certain volunteers from the party. This is untrue.  Former MN DFL Chair Mike Erlandson asked the MN DFL to conduct a thorough impartial investigation into how the convention was run, and said that if such an investigation revealed malfeasance by any individuals, then the party should consider whether such individuals should ever be allowed to facilitate such an event again.

Response 2:  Mistrust

The Minneapolis DFL does not acknowledge the lost trust experienced by the many “party members” whose votes weren’t counted, or who were elected as delegates at their caucuses and but who were deleted from the roster before the convention began.

Nor does the Minneapolis DFL acknowledge how its actions and statements undermine trust.  For example, the Minneapolis DFL asserts in its appeal that it immediately complied with “all aspects of the CBRC’s order”.   This is not true.  Since the CBRC publicly revoked Fateh’s endorsement, the Minneapolis DFL:

• Continued to pin to the top of its Bluesky profile the announcement that Omar Fateh leads its slate of DFL-endorsed candidates.
• Has reposted on its Bluesky page Fateh announcements of door-knocks and fundraisers, without doing the same for other mayoral candidates [Fig 1].

• Updated its website to say that it “appealed interference with convention outcomes” but did not update its website to say that the CBRC revoked Fateh’s endorsement on the grounds that there had been no valid ballot for mayor. Its “updates” page still states (September 6) that Fateh leads its slate of endorsed candidates [Fig 2]

As another example, in its appeal, the Minneapolis DFL references ElectionBuddy, an electronic voting platform used successfully by the MN DFL.  However, one challenger attested that Minneapolis DFL leadership refused to discuss this tool, dismissing it as too expensive, although online pricing suggests it was available for $1200,  considerably less than what the Minneapolis DFL spent on its promotional mailer for Fateh.  Nor does the Minneapolis DFL say if it paid the developer of the failed system, and if so how much.

Response 2:  Contributions of the “urban Minneapolis core” to the DFL

• For months, the Minneapolis DFL pleaded for money to run its caucuses and conventions.  It pleaded for money from the CD5 DFL, the MN DFL, and Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. It required mayoral campaigns to give them $10k.  The Minneapolis DFL collected $5k more than it spent, but rather than returning the money to the mayoral candidates, it used their money to prepare and distribute a mailer promoting their competitor, Omar Fateh.  And now the Minneapolis DFL warns the MN DFL that if it doesn’t restore Fateh’s endorsement, the Minneapolis DFL will have difficulty raising money for the MN DFL.
• Endorsing conventions in Minneapolis long have been aggravating disillusioning experiences.  Many who participate once vow never to have anything more to do with the DFL.  But it is worse than this.  The DFL, especially in Minneapolis, has been splitting apart, with a large and growing gap between “DSA” and “Traditional Liberal” candidates and volunteers.  The Minneapolis DFL Executive Committee aggressively supports DSA candidates and volunteers and does not support traditional liberals with the same fervor. For example, they intervened on behalf of DSA-endorsed Robin Wonsley, when she worked to prevent the DFL from endorsing a competitor.  They have been reposting to their Bluesky profile announcements of door-knocks and literature drops made by DSA-endorsed candidates, but not announcements made by traditionally liberal candidates.  This author agrees that if the MN DFL does not restore DFL endorsement to DSA-endorsed Omar Fateh, the DFL may lose DSA-aligned volunteers.  But by revoking Fateh’s endorsement because of procedural irregularities, the DFL told Normies that it takes seriously their concerns about procedural integrity.    The Minneapolis DFL seems unconcerned about traditionally liberal volunteers, recognizing only those who align with the DSA.
• Compared to 2020, in 2024, Trump did better in the “urban Minneapolis core”, while he did worse in the “Normie” CD5 suburbs. For years, the “urban Minneapolis core” has voted at lower rates than suburban “Normies”.  In every general election since 2020, Ilhan Omar, the darling of the “Minneapolis urban core” has earned far fewer votes than every other DFL candidate on the ballot, up and down.  Like all large US cities, Minneapolis is deeply “blue”, routinely giving DFL candidates for statewide offices more than 80% of its votes.  Does the Minneapolis DFL claim that unless the SEC restores Fateh’s DFL endorsement, the urban Minneapolis core will vote Republican or stay home to punish the DFL?

Conclusions

In its appeal to the DFL State Executive Committee, the Minneapolis DFL argues several points that this author does not dispute.  This author agrees that:

• The CBRC did not hear testimony on August 17 which asserted lack of security for the master check-in sheet or the credentials sheet.
• The CBRC did not define the term ‘probation’, nor did it specify what the Minneapolis DFL may or may not do during the probationary period.

This author agrees with several Minneapolis DFL assertions, but with caveats:

• The author agrees that the CBRC did not establish that convention volunteers had acted improperly but argues that the CBRC did not have this ability. This author believes that the MN DFL should conduct an impartial investigation to determine the truth and observes that the Minneapolis DFL has not asked the MN DFL to investigate.
• This author agrees that if the SEC does not restore DFL endorsement to DSA-endorsed Omar Fateh, the DFL could lose DSA-aligned volunteers. However, this author adds that the MN DFL confronts a tradeoff between DSA-aligned and traditionally liberal volunteers.  Sanctifying a convention that elicited an unprecedented number of challenges could cost the DFL money, volunteers and votes from its traditionally liberal supporters.

This author disagrees with several Minneapolis DFL claims:

• The Minneapolis DFL asserts that the CBRC’s decision was tainted because of conflicts of interest, and that it deliberated “behind closed doors”. This author notes that the Minneapolis DFL does not say how many members had such conflicts, and it does not name the members or their conflicts.  This author also notes that the CBRC followed standard procedure by deliberating privately following the public hearing.
• While the Minneapolis DFL objects to CBRC findings related to credentialing, this author notes that the CBRC did not base its decision about revoking Fateh’s endorsement on credentialing. Rather, the CBRC revoked Fateh’s endorsement because there had been no valid ballot for mayor.
• The Minneapolis DFL does not dispute CBRC findings about problems with the electronic balloting. Instead, it argues that the convened body knew about the problems and decided to use those ballots anyway, and that the CBRC has no authority to overrule the body’s decisions. This author argues that 1) The convened body did not know about all the problems, and 2) If it had proceeded with that knowledge, it would have violated its own convention rules.  The CBRC does have authority over adherence to rules.
• The Minneapolis DFL argues that it is not subject to CBRC or MN DFL authority, yet earlier this year it argued that it can impose its authority on subordinate committees. While the circumstances are technically different, the Minneapolis DFL behaves as if it can and will impose constraints upon others but is not constrained by anyone else, including the state party from which it derives its existence and legitimacy.

Finally this author argues that continuing to dispute DFL endorsement diverts attention away from the real issues in the race.  This author would like to hear all mayoral candidates debate their approaches to public safety, to rent control, to stimulating downtown recovery so that homeowners and renters are less burdened by property taxes that previously were lifted by downtown commercial properties.  This author would like to hear all mayoral candidates describe their vision for Minneapolis in five years or ten, and describe how actions they would take as Mayor would manifest that vision.

As Fateh’s DSA supporters on the Minneapolis DFL Executive Committee continue to assert that the CBRC made an appalling decision when it overturned Fateh’s endorsement, this author wonders if his supporters know that Fateh cannot debate actual issues convincingly.  This author wonders if Fateh’s supporters demand that the MN DFL restore Fateh’s endorsement because they think that this is the only way he can win.