Section 204B.44 Is Election-Specific: Post-Election Petitions Are Moot and Cannot Be Reframed for Future Cycles

Introduction

In Benda for Common-sense, a Minnesota Non-Profit Corporation, and Kathleen Hagen v. Denise Anderson, Director of Rice County Property and Tax Elections, and Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed a recurring procedural problem in election litigation: what happens to a petition under Minnesota Statutes section 204B.44 after the election it targets has already taken place. The case arose from a pre-election challenge to Rice County’s use of electronic voting systems alleged to contain embedded modems that were either uncertified or prohibited under Minnesota law for the November 8, 2022 general election.

The district court dismissed the petition, and the court of appeals affirmed on service-of-process grounds, holding that the petitioners failed to serve “all candidates” on the 2022 ballot as section 204B.44(b) requires. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, but on different grounds: mootness. The Court held that a section 204B.44 petition framed around the 2022 general election became nonjusticiable once that election occurred and that petitioners cannot “re-designate” a later election (here, the 2026 cycle) mid-appeal to avoid mootness. The Court deliberately declined to address whether the service-of-process requirement is jurisdictional.

The decision clarifies that section 204B.44 is a narrow, election-specific vehicle and reinforces Minnesota’s justiciability doctrines of mootness and ripeness in election disputes. It also urges trial courts to prioritize section 204B.44 petitions to ensure resolution before the election whenever possible.

Summary of the Opinion

The petitioners sought to restrain Rice County from using electronic voting systems with embedded modem functions during the 2022 general election, alleging violations of certification requirements and a statutory modem ban.
The district court dismissed in January 2023, identifying several jurisdictional defects, including mootness and failure to serve all candidates as required by section 204B.44(b).
The court of appeals affirmed based on insufficient service, concluding the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on alternative grounds: the section 204B.44 claim was moot once the November 2022 election occurred because no effective relief was possible two election cycles later.
The Court rejected petitioners’ attempt to recast their claim as relating to the 2026 election, explaining that section 204B.44 challenges must be tied to a single, specific election and that any 2026-focused claim was not ripe.
The Court expressly did not decide whether service on “all candidates” under section 204B.44 is a jurisdictional bar, leaving that issue open.
The Court admonished trial courts to prioritize section 204B.44 claims to avoid post-election mootness when claims are properly and timely brought.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Shaped the Decision

Onvoy, Inc. v. ALLETE, Inc., 736 N.W.2d 611 (Minn. 2007): The Court reaffirmed Minnesota’s three-part justiciability test: definite and concrete legal assertions; adverse parties with tangible, conflicting interests; and disputes capable of specific resolution by judgment rather than advisory opinions. This framework established the lens through which the Court assessed mootness and ripeness.
Winkowski v. Winkowski, 989 N.W.2d 302 (Minn. 2023): The Court quoted the standard that a case is moot when a decision on the merits is no longer necessary or effective relief cannot be granted. Applying that standard, the Court reasoned it could not change the voting machines used in the 2022 election, so no effective relief was possible.
Growe v. Simon, 2 N.W.3d 490 (Minn. 2024): Invoked for two justiciability themes: courts adjudicate live controversies, not hypotheticals, and decisions should address present problems, not future possibilities. Growe bolstered the Court’s ripeness analysis rejecting a pivot to the 2026 election absent evidence of imminent harm.
Dean v. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2015): Cited for de novo review of justiciability issues, underscoring that mootness is a legal question the Supreme Court reviews without deference.
Snell v. Walz, 985 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 2023): The Court acknowledged Minnesota’s flexible, discretionary approach to mootness and the availability of limited exceptions. But because petitioners did not argue any exception, none was applied.
Martin v. Simon, 6 N.W.3d 443 (Minn. 2024): Petitioners relied on Martin to argue they could “clarify” the election designation. The Court distinguished Martin, where an original section 204B.44 petition in the Supreme Court proceeded under a scheduling order that invited clarification. There was no such order or ambiguity here; the petition expressly targeted the 2022 election. Martin does not authorize retroactive re-designation to evade mootness.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Simon, 885 N.W.2d 660 (Minn. 2016): Central to the holding that section 204B.44 is a procedural mechanism for a “single specific election,” not a vehicle for generalized policy challenges. Petitioners’ attempt to shift forward transformed the case into an impermissible policy attack.
Minnesota Majority v. Ritchie, No. A09-0950 (Minn. July 22, 2009) (order): Reinforces that section 204B.44 authorizes correction of wrongful acts concerning “an election,” emphasizing the election-specific scope of relief.
Emery v. Simon, 22 N.W.3d 141 (Minn. 2025) (order): Deployed for ripeness. The Court noted that petitioners presented no allegations or evidence indicating the disputed ballot or equipment use was “nearly certain” to recur in 2026. Absent such a showing, a 2026-focused claim would be hypothetical and not justiciable.

Legal Reasoning

The threshold is justiciability. Minnesota courts adjudicate only live controversies. Mootness—when no effective relief is possible—deprives courts of a justiciable case. Because the relief sought here was to restrain the use of specific electronic voting systems for the November 8, 2022 election, and that election had passed, the Court concluded no order could alter what had already occurred.
Section 204B.44 is election-specific. The Court relied on Minnesota Voters Alliance and Minnesota Majority to reiterate that section 204B.44 provides a swift, targeted remedy tied to “an election.” It is not a platform to litigate general election administration policies outside the context of a discrete election event.
No “re-designation” of the targeted election on appeal. Petitioners argued they could reframe the petition as to the 2026 election, invoking Martin. The Court rejected the analogy for two reasons:
- Procedural posture: Martin involved an original petition in the Supreme Court and a scheduling order inviting clarification; there was no comparable order here.
- Textual and doctrinal limits: Allowing re-designation would effectively convert an election-specific claim into a broad policy challenge, running contrary to section 204B.44’s structure and precedent.
Ripeness forecloses future-election reframing. Even if petitioners could prospectively challenge the 2026 election, they offered no allegations or evidence indicating the same voting systems would be used, much less that their use was “nearly certain.” Under Growe and Emery, courts do not resolve hypothetical disputes about future elections absent concrete, imminent harm.
The Court declined to reach other asserted jurisdictional defects. The district court had also relied on:
- Scope concerns (that the requested relief extended beyond section 204B.44),
- Forum concerns (that the Supreme Court, not the district court, was the proper court if the ballot recorded votes for state offices), and
- Service-of-process concerns (failure to serve “all candidates” under section 204B.44(b)).
Because mootness disposed of the case, the Supreme Court expressly took no position on those issues, including whether the section 204B.44 service requirement is jurisdictional. The Court had stayed this appeal pending Rued v. Commissioner of Human Services, 13 N.W.3d 42 (Minn. 2024), but it ultimately resolved this case without addressing the jurisdictional vs. claims-processing character of section 204B.44’s service provision.
Practical admonition to trial courts: Timeliness matters. The opinion reminds courts that section 204B.44(b) envisions expedited resolution and notes the general 90-day decision rule in section 546.27, subd. 1(a). It urges prioritization of properly and timely brought election disputes so they can be resolved before the election.

Impact: What This Decision Means Going Forward

The Court’s ruling supplies concrete procedural guidance that will shape Minnesota election litigation under section 204B.44:

Post-election petitions are presumptively moot. If the election targeted by a section 204B.44 petition has occurred, the petition will almost always be dismissed as moot because no effective relief can be granted. Petitioners must file early enough and seek expedited consideration to secure relief before the election date.
No midstream pivot to a later election. Litigants cannot “rescue” a petition from mootness by recharacterizing it as targeting a different, future election on appeal. A new petition is required for each election.
Election-specific framing is mandatory. Section 204B.44 remains a tight procedural device for remedial, election-specific relief. Attempts to use it for general policy or systemic challenges will be dismissed.
Ripeness demands evidence for future-election claims. To bring a pre-election challenge far in advance, petitioners must allege facts showing a near certainty of the challenged error or practice recurring in the identified election. Speculation that the same machines “might” be used will not suffice.
Service-of-process on “all candidates” remains an open question—jurisdictional or claims-processing? The Court left unresolved whether failure to serve all candidates under section 204B.44(b) deprives courts of subject matter jurisdiction or is instead a nonjurisdictional claims-processing rule. Until clarified, prudent litigants should assume strict compliance is required.
Forum selection remains uncertain in mixed-ballot cases. The district court’s suggestion that this petition should have been filed with the Supreme Court (because the county ballot recorded votes in state-office elections) was not resolved. Litigants should closely analyze section 204B.44’s forum provisions when ballots involve state offices.
Trial court case management is in the spotlight. The Court’s admonition underscores that section 204B.44 claims warrant priority scheduling to avoid mooting disputes by the simple passage of election day.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mootness: A case is moot when a court can no longer grant effective relief. In election cases, once the targeted election occurs, courts generally cannot undo processes or equipment usage after the fact, making the petition moot.
Ripeness: Courts avoid deciding hypothetical disputes. A claim aimed at a future election must be supported by concrete allegations or evidence showing the challenged harm is likely or nearly certain to occur, not merely possible.
Justiciability: The overall concept that courts only decide real, present disputes between adverse parties that can be specifically resolved by judicial order. It includes doctrines like mootness and ripeness.
Section 204B.44: A Minnesota statute providing expedited judicial relief to correct “errors, omissions, or wrongful acts” that have occurred or are about to occur in connection with “an election.” It is designed for targeted, election-specific relief, often on tight timelines.
“Single specific election”: Courts have squarely held that section 204B.44 is not for broad policy challenges; each petition must focus on a particular election (for example, “the November 2026 general election”).
Service-of-process on “all candidates”: Section 204B.44(b) contains a notice and service scheme often understood to require serving all candidates for the offices affected. Whether failure to comply is jurisdictional (and thus fatal regardless of prejudice) is unresolved in this decision.
Exceptions to mootness: Minnesota recognizes limited, discretionary exceptions (for example, issues capable of repetition yet evading review). The Court noted their existence but did not apply any here because petitioners did not argue for an exception.

Additional Context and Procedural Notes

The petitioners’ broader complaint included two Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) counts, dismissed by the district court and affirmed by the court of appeals; those counts were not before the Supreme Court.
The case involved allegations about embedded modems and potential violations of Minnesota Statutes sections 206.57 (certification) and 206.845 (modem ban). The Court did not reach the merits and noted intervening amendments to those statutes in 2023 and 2025 that did not affect its analysis here.
The Secretary of State intervened as a defendant and was a proper party under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 24.03.
The district court held a hearing on October 26, 2022, but did not issue a decision before the November 8, 2022 election. The Supreme Court’s opinion encourages courts to prioritize election litigation under section 204B.44 so that disputes can be resolved before ballots are cast.
Justice Thissen authored the opinion; Justice Gaïtas took no part.

Practice Takeaways

File early and seek expedited relief. If your claim is election-specific, delay risks post-election mootness. Use section 204B.44(b)’s expedited framework and press for pre-election adjudication.
Be precise about the election you challenge. Identify the specific election in pleadings and tailor requested relief accordingly. Do not expect to recast the case to a later election if relief is not obtained in time.
Build the ripeness record for future-election claims. If suing well in advance (e.g., for a forthcoming election), allege facts and present evidence showing the challenged practice is nearly certain to occur.
Serve all required parties. Until the Supreme Court clarifies whether section 204B.44’s service requirement is jurisdictional, treat it as mandatory and err on the side of over-inclusion.
Choose the proper forum. Section 204B.44 contains distinct filing venues depending on the offices implicated. In mixed-ballot scenarios (local and state), analyze the statute carefully to determine whether the Supreme Court is the proper initial forum.

Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Benda for Common-sense v. Anderson delivers a clear, administrable rule for election litigation under section 204B.44: petitions tied to a completed election are moot and cannot be salvaged by redesignating a later election on appeal. The Court reinforces that section 204B.44 is election-specific and that efforts to convert it into a generalized policy challenge will fail. It also emphasizes ripeness: future-election claims must rest on concrete, nearly certain facts, not speculation.

While the Court left unresolved whether serving “all candidates” is a jurisdictional requirement under section 204B.44—and did not reach other forum and scope issues—its holding meaningfully reshapes the strategic and procedural posture of election disputes in Minnesota. Litigants must move fast, plead precisely, develop a factual basis for imminence when looking forward, and comply meticulously with statutory service and forum requirements. Trial courts, for their part, are urged to prioritize these matters so that Minnesota’s elections are administered under timely and authoritative judicial guidance.