LET Election law is not restrictive

I take great exception to your editorial entitled "Restricting Reporters on Election Day " in the Nov. 4 edition.

I disagree with your premise that a 2004 law passed by the Legislature, which supposedly curtails a news organization's ability to gather information, somehow restricts the public's right to know. I have served for many years as an election judge and do not believe what you allege is true.

The Minnesota Election Judge Guide describes Authorized Persons and Activities during voting hours. Section 3.1.9 states that authorized persons are "the press, if authorized by the clerk, may enter polling places for up to 15 minutes to observe voting so long as they show photo identification to the head election judge, stay at least 6 feet from voters and election judges, do not speak to or interview voters in the poll, and do not make a list of those voting or not voting."

This does not seem to be very restrictive, only common-sense rules in tune with our county's voting practices.

Your premise that the public's right to know has been adversely affected is not true and appears to be just another case of "editorial whining." The law does not need to be changed. The law apparently enacted to protect the privacy and interests of the public while in their voting precincts from media intrusion.


Rodney; D. Beistad


What To Read Next
Caitlin and Jason Keck’s two-year term on the American Farm Bureau Federation committee begins next month.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission met on Jan. 5, 2023, to consider the application for Summit Carbon Solutions.
Qualified Minnesota farmers will receive dollar-for-dollar matching money to purchase farmland.