## Facts

- The Anoka–Hennepin School District scheduled a November 8, 2011 special election with three levy questions: renewal of an operating levy, a technology levy, and a contingent “stop-gap” levy tied to legislative action.
- Before the election, the district held public meetings, offered an online property-tax impact calculator, and mailed a notice of special election and a sample ballot to all district addresses.
- The district prepared and paid about $15,000 for a five-page brochure explaining the levies; it was posted online October 27, 2011 and mailed October 31, 2011 to 81,235 addresses.
- The brochure presented tax-impact information and described the effects of approving or rejecting the levies, including possible program cuts if levies failed, and stated it was not circulated on behalf of any candidate or ballot question.
- Minnesota Voters Alliance and Donald Huizenga filed an administrative complaint alleging the brochure was “promotional” ballot-question advocacy requiring campaign-finance reporting under Minn. Stat. ch. 211A.
- An ALJ initially granted summary disposition to the district; a prior appellate decision affirmed dismissal of an unfair-campaign-practices claim but remanded the reporting claim for further consideration.
- On remand, a three-ALJ panel again granted summary disposition to the district, concluding the brochure did not “promote” the levy questions; relators sought certiorari review.

## Issues

1. Whether the district’s brochure “promoted” the levy ballot questions under Minn. Stat. § 211A.01, subd. 4, triggering campaign-finance reporting duties for the brochure expenditure.

## Decision

- The court affirmed summary disposition for the school district.
- The brochure did not “promote” the ballot questions within Minn. Stat. § 211A.01, subd. 4.
- Because there was no “promotion,” the district had no campaign-finance reporting obligation for the brochure costs.

## Legal Principles

- Under Minn. Stat. ch. 211A, reporting duties for a local governmental unit turn on whether its ballot-question communications constitute “promotion” as defined by statute.
- “Promote” requires advocacy that urges a voting outcome; factual explanation of a ballot question, including tax effects and consequences of passage or failure, does not by itself amount to promotion.
- Content controls the analysis: public spending on election-related communications is not reportable absent advocacy-like language or messaging that encourages voters to vote a particular way.

## Conclusion

The court held that the school district’s levy brochure communicated factual, accurate information without urging voters to support the levies, so it was not “promotion” under Minnesota’s local campaign-finance statute and did not require campaign-finance reporting.


Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Anoka-Hennepin Sch. Dist., 868 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. Ct. App. 2015)