The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed a district court's dismissal of a case brought by Benda for Common-sense, a nonprofit corporation, and Kathleen Hagen challenging Rice County's use of electronic voting equipment during the 2022 general election. The court ruled that the appellants' claim under Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44 was moot.
The case, filed as *Benda for Common-sense v. Denise Anderson*, centered on the nonprofit's attempt to restrain Rice County Property and Tax Elections Director Denise Anderson from using embedded modems in the county's electronic voting system during the November 8, 2022, general election. Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon was also named as a respondent in the action.
Benda for Common-sense and co-appellant Kathleen Hagen filed their complaint and petition under Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44, which provides a mechanism for restraining election officials from alleged wrongful acts, errors, or omissions related to election administration. The statute allows concerned parties to seek court intervention when they believe election officials are acting improperly in their duties.
The central issue in the case involved the use of embedded modems in Rice County's electronic voting equipment. The appellants sought to prevent the county from utilizing this technology during the 2022 general election, raising concerns about the security and integrity of the voting process. Embedded modems in voting equipment have been a subject of debate in election administration circles, with some arguing they present cybersecurity risks while others maintain they can be used safely under proper protocols.
The district court initially dismissed the case, determining it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the section 204B.44 petition in January 2023. This dismissal came after the 2022 general election had already concluded, which became a crucial factor in the court's analysis. The Minnesota Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the district court's determination.
In its November 12, 2025, opinion, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' dismissals, concluding that the appellants' claim was moot. Justice Thissen authored the opinion for the court, with Justice Gaïtas taking no part in the decision. The court's syllabus succinctly stated that "Appellants' claim under Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44 seeking to restrain respondent county official from engaging in alleged wrongful acts, errors, or omissions related to the 2022 general election is moot."
The mootness doctrine is a fundamental principle in judicial decision-making that prevents courts from ruling on cases where the controversy has been resolved or where a ruling would have no practical effect. In this case, because the 2022 general election had already occurred, any court order restraining the use of embedded modems would not have any practical impact on the completed election process.
The case was represented by Matthew L. Benda and Ashley A. Olson from Peterson, Kolker, Haedt & Benda, Ltd., of Albert Lea, Minnesota, for the appellants. Respondent Denise Anderson was represented by Ann R. Goering and Jordan H. Soderlind from Ratwik, Roszak & Maloney, P.A., of Saint Paul. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, along with Assistant Attorneys General Nathan J. Hartshorn and Emily B. Anderson, represented Secretary of State Steve Simon.
Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44 serves as an important tool for election oversight, allowing citizens and organizations to challenge election administration practices they believe violate state law. However, the timing of such challenges is crucial, as courts generally cannot provide meaningful relief for elections that have already concluded.
The ruling highlights the importance of timing in election-related litigation. While the statute provides a mechanism for challenging election administration practices, parties seeking such relief must act before the relevant election occurs to avoid mootness issues. This principle ensures that judicial resources are focused on cases where court intervention can have practical effect.
The decision also reflects the ongoing national conversation about election technology and security measures. Questions about electronic voting equipment, including the use of modems and internet connectivity, have become increasingly prominent in post-2020 election discourse. While this case was resolved on procedural grounds rather than the merits of the technology concerns, it illustrates how such disputes are being litigated at the state level.
Rice County's election administration practices during the 2022 general election were not ultimately evaluated on their merits due to the mootness determination. The court's ruling means that the specific concerns about embedded modems raised by Benda for Common-sense were not addressed substantively by the judicial system.
Looking forward, the decision serves as guidance for future election challenges in Minnesota, emphasizing that parties seeking to restrain election officials under section 204B.44 must file their claims with sufficient time before the relevant election to allow for meaningful judicial review and potential relief. The ruling maintains the district court's original jurisdictional analysis while providing clarity on the application of mootness doctrine to election administration disputes.