Minnesota Senate Bill SF2693

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/20/25
• Refer: 3/20/25

Caption

Requirements modification for identifying and verifying a candidate's residence on an affidavit of candidacy

Impact

The proposed adjustments will directly amend Minnesota Statutes 2024, particularly section 204B.06. By clarifying the requirements for affidavit submissions, the bill aims to enhance the integrity of the electoral process, potentially reducing instances of fraudulent candidacy filings. The revised process will also enable quicker verification by the filing officers, who must verify a candidate's residency within one business day of receiving the affidavit. Furthermore, if there is a mismatch in the address documentation, the filing officer is required to reject the affidavit, which aims to uphold the integrity of elections.

Summary

Senate File 2693 aims to modify existing requirements regarding the identification and verification of a candidate's residence when submitting an affidavit of candidacy in Minnesota. The bill mandates that such affidavits must contain a candidate's current address, along with two signatures from residents attesting to the candidate's residence. Additionally, candidates are required to provide a contact telephone number and either a non-governmental email address or a declaration that they do not possess one. The overarching goal of these regulations is to ensure transparency and accountability in the electoral process by validating a candidate's place of residence accurately.

Contention

A significant aspect of SF2693 is its provision for classifying a candidate's address as private under specific circumstances. If a candidate fears for their safety, they can request such classification by providing a separate form and certification, thereby protecting sensitive information from public disclosure. However, this provision may lead to debates regarding the balance between transparency in candidate identification and the need for privacy and safety. Some stakeholders express concern over the possibility that it could allow evasion of public scrutiny, while others argue it is a necessary step to ensure the safety of vulnerable candidates. Overall, discussions around SF2693 highlight tensions between electoral transparency and personal security.