Oak Grove did not ask for a favor. A city of about 9,000 people told Anoka County and Secretary of State Steve Simon that its precincts would check voters in on paper. The county said no. The state said no. On September 11, 2026, the Minnesota Supreme Court said the city was right.
The case is City of Oak Grove v. Steve Simon, et al., A26-0910. The Upper Midwest Law Center carried it at no cost to the city. The order is plain. Under Minnesota law, the City of Oak Grove has the authority to decide whether paper or electronic voter rosters are used at precincts inside its boundaries for the 2026 general election. The Court rejected the claim that the county auditor controls that choice once state, federal, or county races are on the ballot. Minnesota election law, the Court wrote, does nothing to qualify a municipality’s ability to choose electronic or paper rosters for any election, and does not limit a city’s role to elections that only have municipal offices or questions on the ballot.
That is not an Oak Grove souvenir. It is a reading of the statute every other municipality can use.
What the statute actually says
Minnesota Statutes section 201.225 is titled “Electronic roster authorization.” Subdivision 1 says a county, municipality, or school district may use electronic rosters for any election. May. Not shall. Not must. The head elections official in a jurisdiction that chooses electronics may designate some or all precincts. An electronic roster has to meet a long list of technology rules. A paper roster is the ordinary polling-place roster. Electronics are the option.
Subdivision 5 already requires every precinct that uses electronic rosters to keep a paper backup, approved by the Secretary of State, in the polling place in case the tablets fail. Subdivision 6 requires notice to the Secretary of State at least 90 days before the first election in which a jurisdiction intends to use electronic rosters, and a certification at least 30 days out. That notice duty runs to the jurisdiction that wants the tablets. It is not a permission slip the state hands out before a city may return to paper.
Simon’s office confirmed the operational point to Alpha News after the ruling. Neither section 201.225 nor the court order sets a deadline for a municipality to switch from electronic rosters to paper rosters. The office told counties to connect with cities quickly because November 3 is close and a roster change has work attached to it. Coordination is prudent. A county veto is not.
What a poll pad is, and why paper is the integrity gain
A poll pad is not the ballot. It is the electronic roster, the tablet at the door. Anoka County put them in precincts in 2018. Oak Grove used them under an agreement with the county, then terminated that agreement. The city council had voted unanimously in 2024 to get off them. In April 2026 the city notified the state it would use paper. The fight was about who controls the check-in roll.
Mayor Weston Rolf stated the security case without theatrics on Alpha News with Liz Collin. Poll pads are a third-party vendor system. The city cannot tell its people who has access to those records, or when. Paper is transparent. He also said he is not looking for convenience. Staff like the tablets because they are easy. His job is trust in the process. If paper means more work, the city will do the work.
That is the integrity point, and it is specific.
On paper, an election judge sees the name, marks the name, and handles a signature certificate a person can read. Section 201.225 already says the number of ballots to be counted is determined by counting original voter signature certificates or voter receipts. A paper roster keeps that chain in the hands of the judges in the room. A challenged voter, a voter in the wrong precinct, and a voter already marked as having voted are questions a judge can see on the page and resolve under the challenge rules, not prompts on a vendor screen.
An electronic roster is loaded with a voter file in a format the Secretary of State prescribes. It can export data in a format the Secretary of State prescribes. It can be updated for absentee records. It is supposed to be networked only inside the polling place on election day, except for those absentee updates. Those are statutory limits, not a reason to pretend the vendor, the preload, and the export path do not exist. Oak Grove decided the city should not have to take that path on faith. The Court said the city may make that decision.
Paper also fails in a way judges can see. A tablet that locks, loses power, or will not take the file stops the line. The statute already admits that risk by requiring a paper backup wherever the tablets are used. Oak Grove chose the backup as the system.
What the ruling does not do
It does not outlaw poll pads in Minnesota. A county, city, or school district that wants electronic rosters may still use them, if the devices meet section 201.225. It does not rewrite absentee voting under chapter 203B. It does not let a city skip notice and training. Counties that have been marking absentee voters on tablets will have to mark those voters on the paper roster before the books go to the precinct. That is real work. It is not a legal bar. Anoka County told the Court it had roughly 49,000 absentee ballots to account for in a countywide count. A city that switches should demand the printed rosters early and assign judges to the mark-off. Do the work. Do not hand the excuse back to the vendor.
Do this now
November 3 is the election. Simon’s office has already said there is no statutory deadline and that counties should be talking to cities immediately. Mayors, clerks, and councils who want paper at the door should move this week, not after the next work session.
- Put a resolution on the next council agenda. State that the city will use printed voter rosters, not electronic rosters, at precincts inside city boundaries for the November 3, 2026 general election and until the council votes otherwise. Cite Minnesota Statutes section 201.225, subdivision 1, and City of Oak Grove v. Steve Simon, A26-0910.
- Send written notice the same day to the county auditor and the Office of the Secretary of State. Do not ask for permission. Inform them of the city’s determination. Ask for the date the printed precinct rosters will be delivered, the procedure for marking absentee and early voters on those rosters, and the paper supplies and judge training the county already uses as the required backup under section 201.225, subdivision 5.
- If the city is on a county electronic-roster agreement, terminate that agreement in the same resolution, effective for the coming election. Oak Grove ended its agreement and notified the officials. The Court still held the city had the authority.
- Direct the clerk to train every election judge on paper mark-off, the oath and signature certificate, challenges, and same-day registration on paper applications. The statute already contemplates paper. This is not a new election. It is the roster without the tablet.
- School boards are named in the same statute. A school district that controls its own precinct roster should read subdivision 1 the same way and notice the county and the Secretary of State in writing.
- County boards that still want tablets in some precincts should stop telling cities they have no choice. The Court rejected that reading. A county may use electronic rosters. It may not force them on a municipality that has chosen paper inside its own boundaries.
- Call Oak Grove. Mayor Weston Rolf has already said elected officials across the metro and the state are asking how the city did it. Isanti County has moved. The grassroots record is with the Anoka County Election Integrity Team at aceit.vote. The legal record is with the Upper Midwest Law Center. Use both. Do not draft from memory.
Model notice
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 201.225, subdivision 1, and the Minnesota Supreme Court’s order in City of Oak Grove v. Steve Simon, et al., A26-0910, the City of [name] has determined that paper voter rosters, not electronic rosters, will be used at precincts within the city’s boundaries for the November 3, 2026 general election. Please confirm delivery of printed precinct rosters and the procedure for recording absentee and early voters on those rosters. This notice is a determination under the statute and the order, not a request for approval.
Why the delay is the tell
The resistance was never about whether paper rosters are lawful. Paper is the baseline the statute already requires as backup. The resistance was about who decides. Simon sided with the county. The county argued that once a statewide race is on the ballot, the city loses the pen. The Court said the Legislature knew how to write that limit and did not write it for cities. Officials who are still waiting for a statewide bill are waiting for permission they already have.
Rolf’s line is the standard worth copying. Convenience for staff is not the same thing as integrity for the voter. A Minnesotan should be able to walk into a precinct in Oak Grove, Isanti County, Kenyon, or a Minneapolis ward and see the roll marked by a neighbor, not by a screen whose vendor the mayor cannot name. That is a polling place people can trust because they can watch it work.
The win is on the books. The clock is the only thing left in the other side’s favor. Put the resolution on the agenda. Send the notice. Take the tablets off the table.
Phillip C. Parrish
Freedom Talk with Phil
phillip@parrish4mn.com
Heidi Wanty, heidi@parrish4mn.com
1 (612) 460-1717
parrish4mn.com
Sources: Minnesota Supreme Court order in A26-0910 as reported by the Upper Midwest Law Center, September 11, 2026; Minnesota Statutes section 201.225; Alpha News interview with Mayor Weston Rolf, October 2, 2026, https://youtu.be/mySSc4Epa2U; Alpha News report of the Secretary of State’s deadline answer; aceit.vote.