Minnesota House Bill HF278

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/10/25
• Refer: 2/10/25

Caption

Grant-in-aid surcharge added to the all-terrain vehicle registration fee, and fee increased for nonresident all-terrain vehicle state trail passes.

Summary

HF278 amends Minnesota’s data practices and election administration laws to make the major political party affiliation of election judges public data on individuals. Under the bill, each appointing authority must keep a list of election judges showing each judge’s major party affiliation, or a statement that the judge does not affiliate with a major political party, and that list becomes publicly accessible. The bill also updates the state’s data practices statute to cross-reference this new classification. The measure repeals the existing provision that allowed election judges assigned to the same precinct to access one another’s party affiliation solely to verify compliance with party-balance requirements. In effect, the bill replaces a limited internal-access rule with a broader public-data classification for the same information, while leaving in place the underlying requirement that election judge appointments reflect party-balance rules.

Impact

If enacted, HF278 would change how election judge party-affiliation information is treated under Minnesota law by moving it from a restricted-use disclosure framework to a public-data classification. It would amend Minnesota Statutes sections 13.607 and 204B.21, and repeal subdivision 3 of section 204B.21. The practical effect would be to make election judge party affiliation available to the public through appointing authorities’ records, affecting election administrators, election judges, and members of the public seeking transparency about precinct staffing and party-balance compliance.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the bill appears to be framed as a transparency measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. The available context does not show formal support or opposition, but the structure of the bill suggests an intent to increase public access to election administration records. Because no committee discussion or voting history is provided, there is no documented sentiment from legislators or stakeholders in the record supplied here.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the tradeoff between transparency and privacy. Supporters would likely favor public disclosure as a way to increase confidence in election administration and verify compliance with party-balance requirements, while opponents may object that making election judges’ party affiliation public could discourage participation, expose volunteers to unwanted attention, or create privacy concerns. The bill specifically removes a narrower confidentiality rule and replaces it with public access, so the classification of personal political affiliation is the central issue.