Minneapolis DFL Convention: A Summary of Challenges and Complaints

“This … was the most embarrassing and outrageously messed-up DFL endorsing convention I have ever seen in person” … “Business was so disorganized and procedure so poorly followed that it was practically impossible to know who was a delegate, who was an alternate, who could vote, and whose vote had counted.” “The Mpls DFL convention was the worst run large meeting I have ever participated in during a long career involving many organizations, including 40+ years in organizational governance”

“It was an unorganized, chaotic, ineffective and untrustworthy mess that instilled no confidence. My friend and I left saying we would never again participate.  We were glad our young adult kids hadn’t attended as they would have been so turned off.”

“As a DFL elected official, I am appalled by how this process unfolded.  The legitimacy of our endorsements depends not on the outcomes but on the integrity of the process.  That integrity was absent on July 19.  I urge the state party to take immediate steps to revoke all endorsements and begin a thorough audit of Minneapolis DFL conduct”.

On July 19, 2025, at a cost of approximately $55k, the Minneapolis DFL held a citywide endorsing convention at the Target Center. The main agenda items were to consider granting party endorsement for candidates seeking the publicly elected offices of Mayor, Board of Estimate and Taxation, and Park Board Commissioner.  The body also considered resolutions.

The convention elicited numerous challenges and complaints.  The quotes above are from some of the challenges filed with the Minnesota DFL (MN DFL).  On August 7, at approximately 10 PM, the co-chair of the Constitution, Bylaws and Rules Committee (CBRC) of the MN DFL sent a formal hearing notice to everyone whose challenges will be heard, as well as candidates, and those challenged.  The notice lists allegations in the challenges.  The hearing will begin at 10 AM on August 17, via Zoom.  It is open to the public and can be accessed here.

This article reviews the allegations in depth and summarizes what challengers have demanded that the CBRC do in response.

Background

In-person registration for the convention began at 9 AM.  The convention was supposed to begin at 10 AM but started late.  At 10 PM, 13 hours after doors opened, it adjourned.  During this time, it had taken one electronic ballot for mayor.  More than two hours later, results were released, showing an implausibly low number of ballots cast.  Several hours later there was another ballot for mayor, taken by raised credentials, a procedure which violates DFL rules.  Nobody counted votes.  In the final 20 minutes, votes were taken for park board candidates, using procedures which violated DFL rules.  In the final 3 minutes, those remaining on the floor pushed through a BDS resolution, which conflicts with the DFL platform and state law.

The convention elicited numerous public complaints and formal challenges. Robert Lilligren, Will Stancil, Tim Keane, all experienced DFLers, published critical commentaries.  Numerous complaints were posted on social media and in comments to news reports.  The Frey campaign, and the campaigns of several park board candidates, filed formal challenges with the MN DFL..   Former MN DFL Chair Mike Erlandson filed a challenge.  Mayoral candidate DeWayne Davis stated that he was not going to file a challenge, although he believed that the results were not legitimate.

There also were scores of individuals who described their experiences, many accompanied by formal challenges.  These included enthusiastic young people, in their 20s, drawn to Minneapolis for its opportunities, appalled by Trump and eager to get involved in an alternative.  They were dismayed and disillusioned by what they experienced on July 19.  They included older people who had been active for decades in the DFL.  They often cited sections of the DFL constitution that the convention had violated.  A number of challengers accused the DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) of manipulating DFL processes to produce politically favorable outcomes for them.

The MN DFL CBRC will formally hear the challenges, and responses to them, on August 17, starting at 10 AM, via Zoom.  If the CBRC finds that DFL rules were violated, it then must decide what to do.  The DFL Challenge Form invites the challenger to specify a remedy.  Almost all challengers who completed this option demanded that the MN DFL rescind every endorsement and strike the two resolutions adopted in the convention’s final 3 minutes.  Some demanded a thorough audit, including probes of specific individuals.  Some demanded that the DFL “end these sham conventions”.

This article is prepared by an author who has no role in any mayoral or park board campaign, either as staff or volunteer.  Nor has the author contributed financially to any such campaigns.  The article summarizes challenges and complaints, presenting them roughly in the order in which they became recognized at the convention as issues, although there are some departures from this order, to maintain narrative consistency.

Basics of DFL Endorsement Processes

Over many decades, the DFL has honed a process designed to culminate with party endorsements, or not, of candidates seeking publicly elected offices.  The details are specified in the MN DFL Constitution and Rulebook, which is the party’s internal governing document.  Individual organizing units, like the Minneapolis DFL, have their own Constitutions which are subordinate to the state.  Details for a specific cycle are outlined in the unit’s “Call”.

Issues with the July 19 convention emerged as procedures departed from the basics. Some departures violated the DFL Constitution.  Readers unfamiliar with the basics may find it helpful to read this summary, in Supplement 1.

Types of complaints about the July 19 convention

Overview

Issues with the convention began with discrepancies between who had been elected at the April 8 caucuses, and who appeared on the convention’s roster, and in which role.  They continued with mistrust of the new, untested electronic balloting system.  This was related to extensive chaos surrounding the process of upgrading alternates, which was related to granting badges to upgraded alternates.  There also was a last-minute change in rules, where the process of changing them was challenged.  The changed rule violated DFL constitutional requirements for the second and final ballot for mayor, and for the only ballot for district-specific park board candidates.  There were complaints that convention chairs did not respond to delegates’ concerns and obstructed debate.

Many challenges and complaints say that because of the chaos, the mistrust, chairs’ seemingly capricious decisions, and extensive delays, many participants lost faith in the process and departed hours before final rushed votes occurred, so that outcomes produced in the convention’s final 30 minutes did not reflect broad-based community will.  Rather, they reflected the wills of those who survived the attrition and benefited politically from it.

Issue 1. Discrepancies between caucus decisions and the roster

Many individuals who had been elected at their caucus discovered, when they arrived at the Target Center, that they were not on the convention’s roster.  Many challenged their disputed status at the convention with evidence showing that they were duly elected delegates. Credentials (Creds) Chair Jaimi Salome spent more than an hour going through them one by one, explaining why Creds had disqualified them, and then presenting their cases to the body for a vote.  Most were voted out.  Several, not accepting the legitimacy of the July 19 decision, filed challenges with the MN DFL, essentially an appeal. (For in-depth stories, see Supplement 2.)

There also were reports that some individuals who had not participated in their caucuses were added to the roster after caucuses had adjourned.  In one instance, someone who had a role in caucus proceedings explained that he had added to the roster individuals who had submitted non-attendee forms (NAFs).  But each caucus is supposed to decide how to handle its NAFs.  While not required, when a precinct is over-subscribed, most caucuses prioritize individuals in the room, allocating delegate and high-ranking alternate slots to them, filling remaining slots, if they exist, with NAFs.  It is peculiar for an outside person to change caucus decisions after the caucus adjourns, bumping those who were physically present and replacing them with NAFs.

Every complaint and challenge about discrepancies that this author saw came from a Frey supporter.  Although they may exist, the author is unaware of similar challenges or complaints from supporters of Frey opponents.  If the DFL conducts a thorough audit, that compares caucus documents to the convention roster, the DFL should be able to determine the full extent of discrepancies.  If the audit shows that discrepancies systematically impacted certain candidates, then it is not unreasonable to infer that before the convention began, systematic efforts had been underway to manipulate who would be able to vote on July 19.  But that conclusion only can be supported by results from a thorough impartial audit, using documents available to the MN DFL.

Issue 2. The electronic system

Head Teller Amy Livingston had designed a multi-purpose electronic balloting system.  It was supposed to work as follows.  A QR code was displayed on the Jumbotron.  Everyone, regardless of status, could and should scan the code on their phone.  This would display an electronic ballot.

On the ballot, the individual would enter their name and the six-digit numeric code (“Ballot ID”) that the registrar had written on a slip of paper when they checked in.  The Ballot ID would be used by the system to verify that the person submitting the ballot was on the roster, and their status:  Delegate, upgraded alternate, non-upgraded alternate, Distinguished Party Leader (DPL).

The ballot had a line for email address, that the system would use to confirm that their ballot had been received.  At first, the ballot contained a space for the submitter to finger-write their signature.  This feature later was dropped when the system crashed after receiving too many of them.

It was not just promised, but in the rules, that the system would automatically upgrade alternates. The system would use the Ballot ID to differentiate between ballots submitted by those eligible and ineligible to vote and only count the eligible ones.  If one individual submitted multiple ballots, the system only would count the last one.  With all functions operating simultaneously, the system would produce results almost immediately.

Concerns about this system had been expressed during meetings of pre-convention committees.  One challenger said that as a member of a pre-convention Committee, she repeatedly asked that only a validated system be used.  Her suggestion was ruled out of order.  Another raised concerns that the ballot relied on Jotform technology, which is not capable of processing hundreds simultaneously.  Others advocated using Election Buddy, used by the MN DFL for large meetings.  That was dismissed as being too expensive at $3000.  But others noted that the Target Center was expensive.  All concerns and suggestions were dismissed.

The concerns were prescient.  Not one system feature worked.

2a. Test raised concerns

There were two test ballots before the system was deployed for the first real ballot of the day.  During both tests, many reported that they had not received email confirmation.  Head Teller Livingston, the system’s developer, dismissed these concerns, saying that confirmations probably were sitting in SPAM folders, or that the submitter’s email server was slow.  (Many challengers reported that days later, they still had not received confirmation for any ballots, or for just some of them).  She said that spot checks of a few confirmed that all ballots submitted were received.  Her assurances did not allay concerns, and the absent confirmations, and her dismissals of them, fomented mistrust that grew over time.

2b. Absence of “No Endorsement” on the first Mayoral ballot

The MN DFL Constitution requires that all endorsing ballots contain a “No Endorsement” option.  That option was not present on the first electronic ballot for endorsing mayor. Rather than voiding the flawed ballot and starting over, convention leaders added “No Endorsement” to the ballot, changing its format while people were scanning, completing and submitting the original flawed one.  In other words, they changed the ballot in the middle of a vote.

Convention organizers said that anyone who wanted to vote again could, as the system would only count the final one.  But not everyone heard the instructions to submit the revised ballot, so some submitted only the first, which was flawed.  Some individuals submitted both.

Organizers promised that if someone submitted multiple ballots, the system only would count the final one.  But email confirmations – when received – did not say which ballot it had confirmed. After the convention, candidate DeWayne Davis publicly stated that the system did not automatically remove duplicates; this had to be done manually.

2c. Implausibly low number of counted ballots

The test was performed at approximately 4:35 pm.  Although many complained that the system wasn’t working, and urged a change to paper ballots, the presiding co-chair, referencing a 5 PM prayer break, ruled to take the first ballot with the electronic system, despite concerns.  That ballot was taken just before 5 PM, three hours later than the 2 PM time specified in the rules.

It had been promised that the system would report results almost immediately.  This did not happen.  Many requested reasons for the delay.  Several reasons were offered.  Those on the podium said that the internet connection was slow, and that they were speeding things up by changing processing device.  (Internet speed depends on venue, not device).  Then they said that the delay was due to the Head Teller experiencing a medical emergency.  (If the system did everything automatically, why did reports depend upon one person’s physical presence?)  The delay, combined with conflicting reasons for it, added to the general mistrust.

When the results from the day’s first ballot finally were displayed two hours later, after 7 PM, it reported votes from 578 ballots.  This was not plausible.  A credentials report issued shortly after noon showed that more than 1031 had checked in, including 580 delegates, 450 alternates and a number of “Distinguished Party Leaders” (DPLs).  As Stancil and others noted, these people had been inside the Target Center for hours on a lovely summer Saturday, because they wanted a voice in DFL endorsement proceedings, which would determine city governance for the next four years.  It was unfathomable that after all these hours, only half would vote.

There were several possible reasons for the implausibly low ballot count:

1. Consistent with the numerous reports of no email confirmation, many ballots had been cast but not received.
2. Somehow the system knew which ballots did not contain the “No Endorsement” option, and did not count them
3. The ballot was not counted because the six-digit Ballot ID was wrong
4. The system had not upgraded alternates and thus had not counted ballots from them. (There were 800 delegate slots available. With 580 credentialed delegates, approximately 220 delegate slots could have been filled by the 450 alternates, assuming alternates lived in the same precinct as those with empty delegate slots).

2d. An attempted post-hoc explanation

On July 31, two days after the deadline for submitting challenges, and nearly two weeks after the convention adjourned, a thread on X appeared from Maddie Love, who identified herself as “… the person who stepped in as head teller + audited the voting system”.  She said she was going to set the record straight.  During the convention, the body never had been introduced to, much less voted upon, Maddie Love as Head Teller. The body had been told that Briana Rose Lee was the new Head Teller, following the medical emergency of the previous one.

In her social media thread, and also in a report she said she had submitted to the MN DFL, Love cites a noon credentials report saying that there were 652 delegates.  This was 72 more delegates credentialed at noon than the 580 that others had reported.

Love states that 1011 ballots had been cast, and that all ballots had been successfully received.  She did not say how she knew that all ballots cast had been received.

Love matched the 1011 ballots (presumably from unique individuals) the system received to the status the balloter had held at noon, reporting that the system had received ballots from 577 delegates, 310 alternates, and 1 DPL, where the status was that credentialed at noon.  Additionally, she reported that 124 ballots had incorrect Ballot IDs; they were considered “spoiled” thus not counted.  Love drew inferences from these numbers, which we could dispute, but will not do so here.  Rather, we use her numbers to raise provocative questions that weren’t raised at the convention, because her numbers were not shared at that time:

• She reported that the system had received one DPL ballot, yet at least two DPLs cast ballots. They are Mike Erlandson and Latonya Reeves.  Why did the system report only one? (They had DPL status because of their respective roles as former MN DFL Chair, and current Minnesota representative to the Democratic National Committee).
• If there had been 652 delegates at noon, as Love reports, but only 577 ballots from them at 5 PM, this means that before the first vote, 75 delegates had left, a departure rate of 11.5%. Is it likely that 11.5% of credentialed delegates had departed before the first significant vote of the day?  Or is it possible that Love’s report of 652 credentialed delegates at noon was incorrect, and the correct number was what others reported, which was 580?  If so, then from noon to 5 PM, there would have been a loss of 3 delegates, much more plausible. But then why is there a discrepancy between Love’s 652 and others’ 580?
• Love reported that 124 ballots carried incorrect Ballot IDs, producing a 12.5% “spoiled” rate. This is an unexpectedly high percentage of spoiled ballots.  Typically, only one or two ballots per vote are spoiled.  How could the 6-digit codes have been wrong?  (One challenger, when describing her attempt to resolve a discrepancy between her election at caucus and her absence on the roster, said that after two hours, the registrar finally gave her a number but refused to validate its integrity).  Were spoiled ballots submitted by delegates, alternates or DPLs?  Did spoiled ballots disproportionately impact certain candidates?
• Across the city, precinct caucuses on April 8 could elect a total of 800 delegates. Yet three hours after the doors opened, only 652 (or was it 580?) delegates had checked in. This was an 18.5% (27.5%?) no-show rate, for the most high-profile convention of the year, where the outcome not only could determine who would become the next Minneapolis Mayor, but also could determine DFL direction for years.

This was implausible, unless “non-attendance” actually reflected the many discrepancies between what had happened at the caucuses and what the roster showed.  Some said that duly elected delegates went home when they learned they had been bumped from the roster.  Could this explain the apparently low number of credentialed delegates?

Additionally, why did Love’s report not show any numbers for upgraded alternates?  If her report of 652 delegates at noon was correct, then with 800 delegate slots available, there were 148 empty slots that could have been filled by the 310 available alternates, assuming they lived in the same precinct as the absent delegates.  Why were there no reports about upgraded alternates?

• In her statement to the MN DFL, Love said  “… the Excel sheet that Amy had built to tabulate the results was full of broken formulas. At that point, Amy was manually marking duplicate ballots but was on ballot 90 of more than one thousand submissions.”  Why was a system “full of broken formulas” approved for use?  Why was one person manually marking duplicate ballots on one laptop, with witnesses who only could see what she was doing by straining over her shoulder?   Why were none of these problems shared with the body during the convention, particularly when debating the motion to retake the first ballot using paper?

Rather than settling controversies, Love’s belatedly shared report raised more.

2e. More numbers confusion

Love’s report was not the only one that raised questions about numerical validity.

At 9:22 PM, more than two hours after results from the 5 PM electronic ballot were displayed, convention leads finally displayed numbers which served as an updated credentials report.  [Fig 1]. The numbers in the report were internally inconsistent.  The “balloting pool” supposedly included all credentialed delegates, alternates and DPLs, who had not surrendered their credentials as of the time of the report. When summed over city wards, the pool was 847.  When summed over park districts, the pool was 526.  The total balloting pool reported was 865.  All numbers differed.  Which one, if any, was correct?

Moreover, the numbers were inconsistent with Love’s report.  At 5 PM, according to Love, 577 delegates voted.  The 9:22 PM report said that 608 delegates had been credentialed.  Does this mean that from 5:00 pm to 9:22 PM, 31 more delegates arrived? Why would they have arrived at the end, rather than the beginning of the day?

The “9:22 PM Credentials Report” showed that 257 alternates had signed in, although at noon there were 450 credentialed alternates. Did more than half go home?

The 9:22 report said that 91 alternates had been upgraded.  At noon, there were approximately 200 upgrade slots available.  All afternoon, including a mad rush at 5 PM, there had been hours-long upgrade lines.  And yet over the next nine hours, only 91 upgrades had been performed?

If 91 alternates had been upgraded, then in addition to 608 delegates, there presumably were 699 eligible to vote.  With 800 delegate slots, there were 101 vacancies.  There were 166 remaining alternates who presumably had not been upgraded, along with the 193 who apparently had left the convention since checking in at noon.  Why did these slots remain vacant?

And how many vacant slots were there?  Only three wards had a balloting pool less than the number of seats, for a total of 16 vacancies.  Why is there a discrepancy between 101 and 16?

The 9:22 PM numbers do not make sense, just as they had not made sense at approximately 7:10 PM, when the results from the first ballot finally were displayed.

2f. The system never upgraded alternates

The system promised to automatically upgrade alternates, according to DFL rules, into vacant delegate slots, and count only ballots submitted by upgraded alternates.  Because of this promise, alternates were told that they did not need to know their status, they should just vote, as the system would sort everything out.  Alternates also were told that even if they were upgraded, they did not need a delegate badge, because the system would count their ballots. (More on badges below).

In his post-convention statement, candidate Davis stated that the system had not automatically upgraded alternates.  Maddie Love, in her statement to the MN DFL, said “I did not do any delegate upgrades as I was not a member of the credentials committee, nor was I instructed to do any upgrades.”  So the system did not automatically upgrade alternates, and Love did not do so either.

Yet before and during the first ballot for mayor, there were many people standing in lines waiting to be upgraded, and some were manually upgraded by creds volunteers.

Were the ballots of manually upgraded alternates counted?  Perhaps the discrepancy between number of delegates credentialed (Love’s 652, others’ 580) represents the number of alternates who had been manually upgraded, but the data Love used did not differentiate between delegates and manually upgraded alternates, so she reported them all as delegates.

If that happened, then the 652 vs 580 discrepancy means that 72 people who Love reported as delegates were upgraded alternates.  Four and a half hours later, Creds reported a total of 91 upgraded alternates, 19 more than what we infer had been upgraded as of 5 PM.  But there could have been as many as 101 available slots to upgrade alternates.  Why had only 19 been done?

Issue 3. The chaotic and suspect alternate upgrade process

3a. Chaos   

“The alternate upgrade process was incomplete, not adequately communicated, and inaccessible. Delegates eligible to vote were left in hallways or lines when the arena floor was frozen.  A scoreboard-based upgrade list was disorganized, flashed randomly, and was unreadable in full”

From the moment the day began, different alternates received different instructions about how, or if, they would be upgraded, and how they would know.  As the day progressed, the same alternate could have received conflicting instructions from different people.  Many registrars assured alternates that they did not need to know their status, nor would they ever need a delegate badge, because “everyone can cast an electronic ballot.  If you are upgraded, the system will know and will count your ballot.  Otherwise it won’t”.  Alternates were told to sit in Section 133, far from the delegates.  Other registrars assured alternates that if they were eligible to be upgraded, their name would appear on the large Jumbotron screen, and then they should go to the credentials table to get upgraded and receive a new badge.  Or not.  Some said, “You don’t need a delegate badge”.

Instructions changed throughout the day, as circumstances changed.  But whoever was changing instructions apparently did not communicate them with people staffing the creds table, the sergeants-at-arms, and ward chairs.  All gave conflicting information to confused participants.

Initially, the registration/credentials table (Creds Table) was on the lower level, outside security.  Alternates attempting to learn if they were eligible to be upgraded had to leave the arena, go down a flight, exit security, then stand in line for at least an hour, speak with a registrar who often did not know, and then go through security again and up one flight.  During this ordeal, they did not know what was happening on the floor, and could not vote, even if they were eligible.  Many checked with creds long before any names were flashed on the screen, because they had realized that they only could participate in consequential procedural votes if they had been upgraded.

Sometime mid-afternoon, everyone waiting in line on the lower level was told to leave, because registrars were swamped and needed a 20-minute break.  Then convention organizers decided to move the creds table upstairs, inside security but still outside the arena.  The lines reformed.

The organizers flashed the first batch of names on the screen a few moments before they announced the first ballot for mayor.  The names were only roughly alphabetized and were not organized by precinct or ward.  Each screen held dozens of names.  Some screens were projected for a minute or two, others flashed for only a few seconds, not long enough to read.

There was rampant confusion among those who saw their names:  Should they vote and then scramble to get in line, or should they scramble to get in line and hope there would be enough time to vote?  Those on the podium told everyone to stay where they were and vote, assuring everyone, again, that the system would know which alternate votes to count.  But they made this announcement while some already were in the hallway, so not everyone heard.  And as we now know, the system did not automatically upgrade alternates, thus did not know which alternate votes to count.

Those in the hallway, waiting in long lines, could not know when the floor would be frozen for the vote.  Apparently, organizers realized this problem and responded by displaying the ballot’s QR code on screens in the hallway, so those waiting in line could scan it and vote.  (Anyone else in the hallway with a phone could do the same).  But one challenger reported that he checked with those awaiting an upgrade and learned that many were not aware they could vote.

“Freeze the floor” means that just before a vote begins, everyone eligible to vote must be seated with their delegations.  Everyone not eligible to vote must be far away from them.  Sergeants-at-arms close the doors and do not allow anyone to enter or exit the voting space, until all ballots have been collected and transferred to tellers, for the count.  Freezing the floor protects the voting space from interference while balloting is underway.

Displaying the QR code in the hallway shattered all meaning to “freeze the floor”.  All spaces became voting spaces.  Neverhtless, they still locked the doors to the arena, despite many inside the arena demanding that, as customary, chairs wait until all upgraded alternates had returned.  Chairs refused.

Thus, as people were casting their first real ballot of the day, three hours late, just before 5 PM, some were in the arena’s delegate section, some were in the arena’s alternate/guest section, some were in the hallway waiting to be upgraded, while others who had just been upgraded were outside the arena doors waiting to re-enter the “frozen floor”.

“Freeze the floor” did not protect the voting space, but it did prevent those outside the arena from hearing instructions, knowing what was going on, raising questions or concerns, offering motions, etc.  There also was no separate seating:  Everyone, regardless of status, was mingling in multiple spaces while voting was underway.

3b. Suspect upgrade processes  

Many alternates reported that lower ranking alternates had been upgraded ahead of them.  Some reported that they saw their name on the screen, but after waiting in endless lines, they were told that their slot had been given to someone else.  There were several reports from Frey alternates that a non-Frey alternate had been upgraded over them.  There were several challenges alleging that there was a systematic effort underway to not upgrade Frey alternates.  One challenger reported that while she was waiting at the creds table, for her roster problem to be resolved, she overheard creds volunteers disparaging Frey and saying that they would not upgrade Frey alternates.  Others communicated mistrust that alternate upgrades were happening according to the rules but rather were being manipulated to reduce the number of delegates for Frey.

As with challenges and complaints about discrepancies between what happened at caucuses and the roster, this author only saw challenges and complaints about suspect upgrades from Frey supporters.  If supporters of other candidates had these issues, the author is not aware of them, but that does not mean they do not exist.  Again, if the DFL conducts a thorough audit of the upgrades, it should be able to determine if there were systematic differences.

Supplement 3 contains some stories told in more depth.

Issue 4.  Badges

Many alternates were assured that even if they were upgraded, they did not need a delegate badge,

because “the system” would know their status and count their ballot appropriately.  But this assumed that badges only were necessary for electronic ballots.  Badges were necessary for participating in highly consequential procedural votes, along with the (improper) “raised badge” endorsement vote taken in the final 30 minutes of the 13-hour day.

Highly consequential procedural votes included those about which challenged delegates to seat.  It included the vote on an amendment to the proposed rules, that would have replaced electronic ballots with paper ones.  It included the very significant vote about retaking the first mayoral ballot on paper after it was widely acknowledged that the electronic system had failed.  Had chairs ever entertained motions to take written ballots for such votes (they did not), they can pass with only 1/3 agreement.  But only those with delegate badges could vote.

Perhaps the most consequential procedural vote occurred shortly after 9:15 PM, when City Council Vice President Aisha Chughtai introduced a motion to suspend the rules, to rush through all remaining endorsement ballots in the final 30-40 minutes.  By this time, only one contested ballot had been taken, for mayor, and that had been done with the electronic system that failed.  Chughtai proposed to 1) Take the next ballot for mayor by those in the delegate section raising their badges, 2) Vote for district-specific park board endorsements by raised badge, and 3) Vote for park board at-large candidates using a paper ballot, to be counted and reported after the convention adjourned.

It requires 2/3 of the body to suspend the rules.  Only those sitting in the delegate section could vote on this motion to suspend the rules.  They voted on this motion by raising their badges.  The Convention Co-Chair squinted into the bright lights and concluded that 2/3 of those in the delegate section had agreed to suspend the rules and replace them with the ones Chughtai proposed.

Several challengers reported that upon being upgraded, the creds volunteer refused to give them a delegate badge.  One said that volunteers continued to assure her that a badge was unnecessary.  Another said that the creds volunteers were dismissive, uninformed and rude, suggesting that they themselves should leave because they didn’t know what to do.

Then there were reports that instead of giving an upgraded alternate a blue delegate badge, the registrar crossed out the word ‘Alternate’ on the yellow alternate badge and replaced it with the word ‘Delegate’.  Not only were these scribbles not visible from the podium, not only could they have been missed by sergeants-at-arms who were supposedly directing people to the correct section, once it was known that anyone with a yellow alternate badge could sit in the delegate section with the right scribble, some people altered their badges.

And there was more.  One person, in a comment on a published article, said that as he and his companion, both delegates, exited the arena, they were greeted in the hallway by an unidentified woman who demanded their badges.  The commenter said that he told his friend to keep moving, and not to relinquish his badge, but how many others handed over their badges to someone with no authority, who then did whatever she wished with them?

By the end of the day, the DFL separate seating rule had completely disintegrated, but not uniformly.  The alternate/guest section held more people wearing Frey shirts than those wearing shirts of other candidates.  The shirts in the delegate section were more diverse, although most were for Fateh.  While few could visually ascertain who in the delegate section held legitimate credentials, many could see that as the day progressed, more Frey people were alternates, and fewer were delegates.

Issue 5. Endorsements for Park Board Candidates

The Minneapolis Park Board has nine Commissioners, six elected by voters living in each of the six park districts, and three elected at-large by all city voters.  There were multiple candidates contesting DFL endorsement for most park board offices.

Endorsements for Park Board were impacted by Chughtai’s last minute motion to suspend the originally adopted rules.  In her substitute rules, the one and only ballot for district-specific Park Board candidates would be conducted by delegates raising their credentials, and the one and only ballot for Park Board at-large would be taken using paper ballots, during the convention, to be tallied after the convention with results reported later.

As noted above, the original rules were suspended and replaced using a vote taken by raised badge, which had not been counted, even though it requires 2/3 of the body to suspend the rules, and even though by this time it no longer was possible to know who was eligible to vote.  Thus park board endorsements were plagued by the same issues that impacted the mayoral endorsement, in addition to issues specific to park board.

5a. Park Board District-Specific Endorsements

According to the DFL Constitution, only delegates and upgraded alternates from each park board district are eligible to vote on suspending the rules for their district.  No district-specific votes on rules ever occurred.  Individuals living in (for example) District 3 could dictate the rules for District 4

Furthermore, there was no attempt to establish district-specific quorums, and no attempt to ensure that only those living in the District could vote in that District.  And as already noted, voting on endorsements using publicly raised badges is expressly prohibited in both the Minnesota and Minneapolis DFL Constitutions.  These district-specific votes violated multiple DFL rules.  No counts ever were provided for any of the district-specific Park Board candidates.  One said, “No one can tell me how many people voted for me versus my opponent and there is no record of that”.

5b. Park Board At-Large Endorsements

For Park Board at large, multiple candidates sought DFL endorsement, but only three could be elected in November.  All candidates seeking endorsement were listed on the paper ballot, which did not contain instructions to vote for no more than three.  No reports ever were provided for “spoiled ballots”, because the balloter voted for more than three.  Also, the ballots did not have markers on them to identify which district or precinct they were from.

One Park Board candidate said that candidates were not able to observe the tallying, which happened after the convention adjourned, in an unknown space.  This violates DFL rules.  It took two days for the Minneapolis DFL to report the results.  What happened during those two days?

Issue 6.  Decisions by Convention Co-Chairs

The convention co-chairs were Dan Thomas Cummins and Ann Friedrich.  Both are CBRC members, and Friedrich co-chairs the CBRC.  Thus both are highly conversant with DFL Constitutional requirements and Roberts’ Rules of Order.  There also was a Parliamentarian, Kay Lewis, conversant with requirements imposed by the DFL Constitution and by Roberts’ Rules.  A number of challenges named the co-chairs, and a small handful referenced the parliamentarian.  These challenges fell into three categories:

1. Chairs did not recognize legitimate requests
2. Chairs’ decisions did not make sense
3. Chairs’ decisions violated DFL rules

6a. Chairs did not recognize legitimate requests

There were several challenges stating that chairs did not recognize people standing at microphones, especially those on the upper levels.  One challenger said that floor mikes were managed inconsistently, and that recognition appeared arbitrary, or selectively enforced.  One stated that he stood at a microphone for 15 minutes awaiting recognition, while the co-chair called on those at other microphones.  He concluded that this reflected personal animus against him.

Others said that many standing at microphones at the end wanted clarification of Chughtai’s motion, to suspend all rules and rush the remaining ballots.  What, exactly, were they voting upon?  There was no clarification, there was no debate, there was no recognition of the perplexed delegates at microphones, wondering what all this was about.

Others challenged chairs on the grounds that they refused to recognize calls for “division”, a count of votes rather than relying on audible ayes or nays, or eyeballing raised badges.  Chairs are obligated to honor such calls, and they are not debatable. Yet several challengers cited critical votes in which chairs ignored or gaveled over such calls.  This included Chughtai’s motion to suspend the rules.  Rules only can be suspended if 2/3 agree, yet nobody had counted the votes.  Chairs assessed the 2/3 by eyeballing raised badges, ignoring demands for a count.

There also were challenges that the chairs had ignored demands to assess quorum, before the day’s final ballots were taken in the last 30 minutes.

“The pattern of obstruction – intentional or not – silenced legitimate delegate input, blocked oversight, and materially influenced the convention’s trajectory by shielding procedural decisions from challenge or debate.”

6b. Chairs’ decisions did not make sense

A number of challengers noted inconsistencies in the debate over retaking the first mayoral ballot, using paper ballots.  Those on the podium had acknowledged that the electronic system was flawed, and now we know, after the convention, from the Maddie Love report, that it was more flawed than they had told the body (the outdated Excel froze up, all the formulas broke, it didn’t automatically weed out duplicate ballots, it hadn’t upgraded alternates).  Those on the podium used their acknowledgement of the flawed system to justify changing the rules, to take the second ballot on paper.  (This never happened, but they did propose it.)

Yet co-Chair Thomas-Cummins expressed confidence that the first ballot results were correct, thus there was no need to retake the first ballot using paper.  Several challengers wondered how he could be so confident that the system had produced a credible first ballot result, while simultaneously saying that it was too flawed for continued use.

6c. Chairs’ decisions violated DFL Constitutional requirements

Several challenges cited sections of the DFL Constitution that chairs had violated.  These included:

• Votes for endorsement by public show of hands, which is explicitly prohibited in both the MN and Mpls DFL Constitutions. Yet chairs allowed this for the second mayoral ballot, and for the balloting for district-specific Park Board endorsements.  Even if the body had voted for a show of badges, their vote cannot override MN DFL rules.
• Votes for district-specific park board candidates were conducted in an uncontrolled environment where delegates from other districts could be present. And rules about district-specific endorsements were set not by those who lived in the district (required) but by those from districts across the city.
• Refusal to acknowledge, much less accede to demands to establish that an at-large quorum was present, nor that quorums were present within each Park Board district.
• While not a constitutional requirement, there was a long-established precedent of reporting to the body, before every major vote, an updated credentials report, which showed the number of delegates and upgraded alternates eligible to vote, along with names of upgraded alternates. This was never done.
• The decision to allow the electronic balloting system arguably violated Constitutional separate seating requirements, because everyone cast ballots while mingling.

7. Miscellaneous complaints

Some excoriated the people who planned and ran the convention, citing incompetence or corruption or both.  In a comment on one article, the commenter said  “Over the years I have known personally many of the folks involved … some I’d regard as corruption suspects, and some I wouldn’t. But … one only has the labelling options of “utterly incompetent” or “corrupt”.”   Another comment, on the Keane open letter, said:  “…I can’t speak to the misconduct claims, but what we saw at the convention was on the level of Pete Hegseth incompetence.”

A number of commenters and challengers explicitly cited the DSA, claiming that they were running the convention, and in some cases the caucuses.  Others angrily insisted that the DSA was its own party with its own platform and thus did not belong in the DFL.  One said that the Mpls DFL should rename itself to reflect what it really was, the Minneapolis DSA.

There also were reports of rudeness, of loud antagonistic arguments.  There were reports of people being arbitrarily ejected from the convention.

None of these miscellaneous complaints violate DFL rules, so the CBRC is unlikely to consider them at the August 17 hearing, or in its findings report.  They are mentioned here to convey the overall experience of many convention attendees.

DFL Leaders Demand

In his letter to challengers on August 7, CBRC co-chair Tim O’Brien says that the CBRC will issue a written report within 7 days of the August 17 hearing.  That report will say if the CBRC has concluded, based on clear and convincing evidence, if alleged violations occurred. The O’Brien message does not say what the DFL may do if the CBRC finds that the allegations are sustained.

In their challenges, several former DFL leaders, and current DFL elected officials, demanded action from the DFL, based on the assumption that the CBRC will find that violations occurred.

First, they demand that the MN DFL must void all endorsements, resolutions, and official actions taken at the July 19 convention.  The MN DFL must prohibit the Minneapolis DFL from endorsing through its Central Committee.

The demands continue.  They state that the scale of misconduct and procedural breakdown on July 19 warrants immediate intervention, and they demand that the MN DFL suspend the Minneapolis DFL charter pending a full, independent investigation into the convention’s planning and execution.  Once the full truth is known, they want the MN DFL to determine if any individual involved in planning or executing the convention should ever be permitted to facilitate such an event again.

To support the scope of their demands, they question the ability of Minneapolis DFL leadership to tell the truth, to act with transparency, to act in an unbiased manner.  They note that Minneapolis DFL leadership still acts without transparency, by continuing to insist that “every vote was counted” on July 19.

They assert that these remedies are proportionate to the violations, and that they are necessary to restore trust in DFL endorsement processes, and to restore trust in the DFL.  “The party must take action to ensure that future conventions uphold democratic standards and comply with the DFL Constitution and Bylaws.  Rules only matter if we enforce them.  If we do not, we send a message that disorder and rule-breaking are simply part of the process”.

The Minneapolis Times will publish the CBRC findings of fact shortly after the report is released.  We also will report on any subsequent actions the MN DFL takes, particularly with reference to these proposed remedies.

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

lhan Omar condemns the Minnesota State DFL overturning the fraudulent endorsement of Omar Fateh for Mayor of Minneapolis.

Minneapolis DFL Placed on Probation, Fateh Endorsement Overturned

How Democratic is Our DFL?

Minneapolis DFL Convention: A Summary of Challenges and Complaints

Minnesota DFL Schedules Date and Time for Hearing on Minneapolis Mayoral and Park Board Endorsement Complaints

How To Steal An Endorsement, Minneapolis DFL/DSA Style

Over 100 Challenges to the DFL Fateh “Endorsement”