Some say our democracy is on life support. Our Minneapolis Mayoral endorsing convention may just be an example of the decline of democracy.
The Times has featured articles about how the 2025 Minneapolis convention was fraught with problems and a failed electronic voting system. But it is important to understand that what happened at the Minneapolis convention didn’t just happen on the day of the convention – the Minneapolis DFL Convention Rules Committee, which dictates the convention’s process, is where problems began. The chaos of the endorsement process was engineered by them. This piece offers insights into how this happened.
The Rules Committee Meeting
The Rules Committee first met on June 16th, via Zoom. As a first-time member, I planned to lay low and take it all in. When the motion to allow electronic voting came up, I hoped someone would require that the system that would be used for the Minneapolis convention have a successful track record, as there are multiple electronic voting systems that could have been used. That did not happen.
Later, “electronic voting” was again mentioned. I suggested we precede “electronic” with “proven” electronic voting system. (Isn’t a “proven” voting system in everyone’s best interest?) Sam Doten, a parliamentarian and founder of the Twin Cities Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), ruled me out of order. (Then why object to adding “proven” to electronic voting, I thought?) The truth was that some other kind of electronic voting had been used at other conventions before, but not the system that was going to be used at the Minneapolis convention.
When he ruled me out of order, he did not suggest where in the meeting I could make this motion to have a proven system. Ron Wacks, a long-time DFL volunteer, oversaw the meeting. He also did not suggest making a motion at another point. I was shut out for wanting to use a voting system that had been used successfully in the past.
As a result, no requirement that the electronic system used be proven successful was included in the actions of the Rules Committee. Some people were somehow chosen to select a voting system and it turns out it was completely untested. Unsurprisingly, it failed.
Is this what people on the Rules Committee voted for? I don’t know. There were no tallies of voting provided – only results (carried/not carried). In a subsequent communication after I asked for the meeting’s minutes to see what the vote counts were. Ron Wacks told me there were none. Accountability?
DFL Guidelines
The DFL Officer’s Guidebook states (p. 7) ”move the meeting along quickly without discouraging meaningful discussion.” “Ask someone to make a motion when needed.” It also states: “Parliamentary procedure (Robert’s Rules) are useful to ensure equal time for opposing views and fair consideration of any issue.” Was parliamentary procedure used to promote equitable participation, or to control results? In this case, parliamentary rules were used to shut down discussion so they could push through a flawed voting system.
Meanwhile, the Minneapolis DFL Official Call, the document that lays out how the convention will happen says:
“EXPECTATION OF NEUTRALITY: Meeting officials and other volunteers at any caucus, committee meeting, or convention must, at all times, maintain impartiality with respect to the business at hand, and avoid any appearance of partiality.”
Don’t get me wrong. I’m a life-long Democrat. I first volunteered at age five, distributing “handbills” for a DFL candidate running for Postmaster General. These days, however, I fear our party is losing its way. Sam Doten, the parliamentarian, was not neutral. He worked to create rules that supported the endorsement of a socialist. Unsurprisingly, that is exactly what happened.
How Roberts Rules of Orders can be Weaponized
The Foraker Group, exists to strengthen nonprofits. Their findings may well apply here. According to their blog:
“We regularly receive calls requesting us to teach parliamentary procedure…– and regularly we decline... We believe that focusing too much on the Rules takes away from important aspects of what makes for an effective meeting.
“…strict adherence to Robert’s Rules in many nonprofit board rooms is more of a barrier to participation in ways that include:
- It is used to shut down meaningful conversations.
- It is used in the antithesis of the group’s innate culture to talk or deliberate in a different way.
- It is used by only a few who then, in turn, dominate the discussion and decisions.
- It is used to intimidate (intentionally or unconsciously) people from joining the board.”
I have sensed such issues in numerous DFL meetings. The chairs of meetings weaponize Roberts Rules of Order to shut down dissent. And in electronic meetings, if you try to object, you are simply muted – excluded from the discussion so the things the chair wants to achieve happen. This is not democracy, it is totalitarianism.
Bias in DFL Meetings
How does our state DFL monitor meeting, caucus and convention neutrality? This is vital given the current divide in the DFL. I’ve heard complaints of bias at conventions.
I’ve witnessed bias during Ward 10 conventions. One example: at the 2023 convention, Nasri Warsame, a Somali, ran against DSA member Aisha Chughtai for the ward’s city council representative. Many non-English-speaking Somali Democrats attended, yet an interpreter was not always present. Nonetheless, Sam Doten, convener, continued the meeting for considerable time without an interpreter. Yet Nasri was banned from ever seeking DFL endorsement for office. Equitable and impartial?
If a “proven electronic voting system” had been used at the Minneapolis convention, one central problem—the failed electronic voting system—likely could have been avoided. But instead, it was clear that Sam Doten wanted this system, and he got it. Why? What did Doten know about it that the rest of us didn’t?
Ron Wacks also said that meetings, caucuses and conventions exist to endorse and elect candidates, and to recruit volunteers. Does anyone believe the Minneapolis convention incentivized more people to volunteer for the DFL?
Difficulties DFL Meetings Pose
Can the DFL assure meeting and leader neutrality? Right now, the Minneapolis DFL has no neutral leadership. The leadership is aligned with socialists, and they work to elect socialists, and that is what happened at the Minneapolis Mayor’s convention.
What can we do? We should drop caucuses and conventions and switch to primaries because the Minneapolis DFL cannot be neutral. Why not give ALL constituents a chance to vote in a primary—rather than a mere segment at an endorsing convention? Typically, endorsed candidates win. So the endorsing convention plays a significant role in elections, yet relatively few can participate.
Furthermore, these morning-into-night conventions are problematic, especially for seniors or people in poor health. And what about people who practice their faith on Saturdays? Our conventions include prayer times for Muslims. But, sadly, Jewish people must choose between their faith and participation in democracy.
Isn’t it discriminatory to employ a system which prevents many members from participating? Isn’t a primary far more democratic? Isn’t that what the DFL is about: a democratic party concerned for all?
After the Minneapolis convention, I understand there were 99 convention challenges submitted to the state DFL. As we await the results, it appears the very nature of the democratic process in our DFL party is at stake. How will DFL leaders respond?
Related:
Open Letter to Omar Fateh about His Campaign’s False Claims
Minneapolis DFL Mails False Fatah Endorsement to Voters in Defiance of State DFL
Hostile Takeover of State DFL Planned by DSA Co-Founder
Minneapolis DFL Placed on Probation, Fateh Endorsement Overturned
Minneapolis DFL Convention: A Summary of Challenges and Complaints
I thought it was telling that yesterday (8/17) at the State DFL Hearing over the complaints, the defense of one of the Convention Co-Chairs regarding why obviously bad or even rule-breaking procedures were allowed to occur was that individuals asking questions or voicing complaints in real time during the Convention often made the “wrong” motion, or no motion at all. One example that stood out to me was when the co-chair stated that Delegates kept making motions for voting by “Division” after a vote by Division (show of hands, or badges) had already been held. Then, apparently not realizing that she was now “saying the quiet part out loud”, she added that if the Delegate wanted a vote where the hands or badges were actually COUNTED rather than “eyeballed”, they needed to move for a “Counted Division” or some such verbiage. I almost swallowed my tongue…! First, that is NOT my understanding. But I could be wrong – unlike the co-Chairs, I am NOT an expert on procedure. However, a COMPETENT and FAIR meeting chair who is using Roberts’ Rules and feels they KNOW what a delegate means or wants TELLS the delegate what the appropriate motion is, and suggests they may want to make that motion. THIS IS THE CHAIRS’ JOB. Period! Otherwise, we in the DFL are admitting that we only want to enfranchise those who already have highly polished parliamentary skills. Everyone else should stay home and let the “process geeks” make all the decisions!
I’ve been to literally dozens of DFL Conventions over 40 years, and I’ve seen a lot of Convention Chairs ply their volunteer craft efficiently effectively and with aplomb. I almost hesitate to call out just one, because over the years I have seen many excellent ones – But J.P. Barone of White Bear Lake comes immediately to mind, and longtime DFLers who have been to state conventions, or conventions in the eastern part of the Metro, will know who I am talking about. He and his ilk would NEVER run a convention the way this one was run, and would never even dream of excusing an underwhelming performance by himself as co-Chair on the lack of Parliamentary skills OF THE DELEGATES. What a stunning admission that was!
The behavior of the two co-chairs truly only allows for two possible descriptions. It was corrupt, or it was grossly incompetent. Since I am acquainted with one of the co-chairs, and have heard little about the other, I am going with the lesser charge of “grossly incompetent” – but reserving my option ultimately to use the worse label, should someone be able to show anything resembling evidence. It. Was. THAT. Bad.
Great comment, Jim. You’re right. The “call for division” vs. “counted division” is a classic example of weaponizing Roberts Rules. Had the leaders been neutral, they would have informed the delegates of the difference between the two, and asked which they wanted.
Clearly, that was not the objective of the convention leaders.
Thanks for your observations.
Yes, David, both the Minneapolis DFL AND the state DFL. As Timothy Keane said in the CBRC meeting today, “The credibility of our party is on the line here.”
Hear hear!
Socialism: one man one vote ….one time
.
The DFL city convention followed all the usual hallmarks. Stealthy takeover of key roles and committees. Manipulation and suppression.
How Democratic is Minneapolis DFL? We’ll begin to find out tomorrow (Aug 17) with the final verdict rendered in about a week.