News Releases
Ongoing Interactions in the St Paul Mayoral Race
Minnesota Report
Additional Information: Since the original publishing on October 7th, there was another forum sponsored by the Coalition of Asian American Leaders (CAAL) at the Wilder Headquarters in St Paul. The event wasn’t much different than previous ones, except they allowed for questions from the audience, and our publisher Shawn Towle asked the proverbial burning question which had yet to be answered publically. Which of your fellow candidates would you recommend to your supporters as your 2nd choice? Now, one would have thought, the well attended FairVoteMN debate, during which they stressed the idea of voting more than once on your ballot as an important factor in this election, and the fact St Paul, unlike Minneapolis allows upto six selections, would have made sure this question was offered, but they didn’t.
The response we received at the CAAL event was quite surprising. The organizations Program manager and event moderator Jeffrey Ting refused to allow the question to be answered. Its clear the organization’s leadership is confused by the fact, as a sponsoring organization, no opinion offered by the participates is anything the organization is bound to. Some uninformed people thought this answer would in someway adversely impact their nonprofit status. It wouldn’t in anyway, but the citizens of St Paul were denied this information.
Original Article: The race for Mayor in St Paul is heating up and in limited capacity the residents are showing varied levels of interest. Last night, candidates Melvin Carter III (DFL), Van Chen (DFL), Adam Dullinger (Yet to be self-identified), Kaohly Her (DFL) and Mike Hilborn (I) met at the Glory Dei Lutheran Church in Highland Park. The event hosted by FairVoteMN and a number of District Councils and featured the moderator Tane Danger, was a packed house, with approximately 300 people in attendance. The event was recorded by KMSP 9 for its YouTube Channel. The week before, it was a forum hosted by the Lexington Hamline District Council, which was not recorded, and all candidates were present except Dullinger. One highlight here, was Hilborn, made a succinct closing argument for himself saying, “Pick me because I’m awesome.”
Last night the debate opened with opening statements, and instead of the traditional answers we have heard in Ranked Choice Voting contests, most said pick me first, except Chen who said, “Pick me first and if not, pick me second. To which she received a number of outburst laughs.
The first question was about increasing property taxes, which is clearly the most important issue for city taxpayers. Danger asked, “What would you do to alleviate Property taxes?” There was a follow-up, with what areas would they seek to cut in order to not adversely impact property taxes. He then queried, “What are some of the changes we would see if you were Mayor? The candidates were ask to address what they would do for redevelopment of St Paul. Naturally, this brought about the discuss of crime and public safety, which each person had their take on.
And then the burning question about the Summit Avenue Regional Trail (SART) came up and the night got interesting. With Hilborn saying Summit was just fine as is, Her questioning the process, Dullinger saying it was good and we need more bike safe bike routes, Carter defending to process and the outcome and Chen discuss the pitting of the two sides, bicyclists and homeowners against one another, she supported opposition to the process and ultimately questioned whether-or-not this was a priority for this moment in time.
Speaking of Dullinger, during the SART conversation in the debate, this new urbanist, showed himself to be nonreflective, rude and disrespectful to others when he said off of mic at minute 1:15:24, “Such a Bullshit answer,” which in turn Her called him out, but misstated, saying she didn’t appreciate her words being referred to as a Batshit answer, when he was given the mic, he stupidly clarified he said Bullshit answer. It was a defining moment showing him to be a petulant child, whining to be able to ride his bike anywhere and everywhere safely. Its clear someone needs to grow up and learn some level of decorum, because this young man is not ready for prime time.
Editor’s Note: Honestly having viewed this issue closely, there is no need for an elevated bike lane on Summit, but a better solution would be to shift the bike lane to the inside area next to the curb, ban on street parking, or make the parking lane the next lane and then have the traffic lane furthest left. This solution is far more tenable and less costly, with a buffer zone between bikes and moving cars.
After the debate concluded, we thought, the one question never asked during a Ranked Choice Voting debate needed to be offered. Who is your second choice? We asked Dullinger first, and the little pissant, had the audacity to violate personal space and turning off the recording, and said his choice was probably Carter. Caveat: “Adam, ever touch my phone again your finger will be broken.” C&B Publisher Shawn Towle.
Hilborn said, “Probably Yan Chen, and Kaohly Her.” he later solidified his position with Yan Chen. Her has repeatedly, said she likes many of Chen’s ideas and of course Yan Chen is her second choice. Finally, Carter, again being too cute by half, and clearly is not comfortable considering the possibility of a loss said, “I’m undecided.”
We are hoping at some event someone will actually, ask the question and the clarity for all will be achieved. Specifically, because Carter actually has never had to deal with the idea of a single transferable vote, because he abtained at least a simple majority win. When we published the notorious “Gun Letter” we help solidify his victory in 2017. In 2021, he had no serious challengers. This time, it seems many believe, Melvin has had his chance(s). The situation brings to mind the misrepresentation now thought of as an old artificial adage, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results” is a popular saying, but it is a misattribution to Albert Einstein and is more of a proverb than an actual clinical definition of insanity.”
In Carter’s case, he needs to acknowledge, not just that St Paul has problems that happened on his watch, but also problem cropped up that he provided either ignored, provided no reasonable response to, or acted too late. Often, while only playing head cheerleader, he fails to acknowledge the score of the game, and sorry, but not all is always sunshine in St Paul. Time for a Change.
Pam Bondi Draws Aim on Minnesota
National & Minnesota Report
The federal government’s authority to challenge sanctuary policies is rooted in its constitutional power over immigration, supported by the Supremacy Clause and federal immigration laws. This authority, however, is balanced by the Tenth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from “commandeering” states or localities to enforce federal law.
Constitutional principles
- Supremacy Clause: Article VI of the U.S. Constitution establishes federal laws as the “supreme Law of the Land”. Courts have consistently held that the federal government possesses “plenary power” (broad, exclusive authority) over the admission and removal of non-citizens. State or local policies that conflict with or undermine federal immigration law are therefore preempted and can be challenged by the federal government.
- 10th Amendment and Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the federal government cannot force, or “commandeer,” state and local officials to carry out federal regulatory schemes. This has led courts to rule that while local governments cannot obstruct federal agents, they also cannot be compelled to assist federal immigration enforcement by honoring immigration detainer requests.
- Spending Clause: Congress can use its spending power to influence state policies by attaching conditions to federal funding. However, the Supreme Court has set limits on this power, requiring that any funding conditions be clearly stated, related to the funding’s purpose, and not coercive. Federal attempts to withhold grants from sanctuary jurisdictions have been challenged in court, with some rulings invalidating the use of grant conditions for immigration enforcement.
This provision has limited applications with the universality of Republican control of the Federal government at the Executive, legislative and Judicial levels. This means the system enables the ability for Donald J Trump (R) as, to run roughshod over the Constitution and all of American citizens. There must be some sort of political revolt. Be it at the ballot box, in 2026, where hopefully America has awakened from its stupor and delivers a Democratically controlled House and Senate, with enough votes to impeach and convict the Great Orange Imbecile or ultimately in 2028, and trounce the Republicans completely.
Existing Federal Immigration Statutes
Federal laws passed by Congress empower the federal government to challenge sanctuary policies.
- Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): The INA outlines a comprehensive framework for immigration and is the primary statute federal officials use to argue for federal supremacy in immigration matters.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1373: This federal statute prohibits state and local governments from restricting officials from sending or receiving information regarding an individual’s citizenship or immigration status to federal immigration authorities. The Department of Justice has challenged sanctuary policies that restrict information sharing, but court rulings on the constitutionality of this statute have been mixed.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1324: This law prohibits knowingly harboring or concealing undocumented immigrants, and federal officials have cited it to challenge sanctuary jurisdictions.
Executive Branch Actions
The executive branch, which includes the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), can use its authority to challenge sanctuary policies.
- Litigation: The DOJ can and has filed lawsuits against states and cities with sanctuary policies, arguing they are preempted by federal law or unlawfully obstruct federal immigration enforcement.
- Executive Orders: Presidents have issued executive orders directing federal agencies to identify and take action against sanctuary jurisdictions, though some of these actions have been challenged in court.
These Executive Orders can be overturned by a new administration, unless Congress sees clear to limitations on the Presidency to do so.
Yesterday, the DOJ put out the following press release.
Justice Department Sues Minnesota Over Sanctuary Policies
Monday, September 29, 2025
WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Paul, Hennepin County, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna S. Witt over the State’s, Cities’, and County’s sanctuary city policies that interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of its immigration laws.
Not only are the sanctuary city policies illegal under federal law, but, as alleged in the complaint, Minnesota’s, Minneapolis’, St. Paul’s, and Hennepin County’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities results in the release of dangerous criminals from police custody who would otherwise be subject to removal, including illegal aliens convicted of aggravated assault, burglary, and drug and human trafficking, onto the streets.
“Minnesota officials are jeopardizing the safety of their own citizens by allowing illegal aliens to circumvent the legal process,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “This Department of Justice will continue to bring litigation against any jurisdiction that uses sanctuary policies to defy federal law and undermine law enforcement.”
“Shielding illegal aliens from federal law enforcement is a blatant violation of the law that carries dangerous consequences,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “The Civil Division will continue to vigorously uphold the rule of law by holding sanctuary jurisdictions fully accountable.”
On her first day in office, Attorney General Bondi instructed the Department’s Civil Division to identify state and local laws, policies, and practices that facilitate violations of federal immigration laws or impede lawful federal immigration operations. On August 5, 2025, Attorney General Bondi published a list of sanctuary jurisdictions, which included Minnesota, and vowed to bring litigation to end these policies nationwide. Today’s lawsuit is the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by the Civil Division targeting illegal sanctuary city policies across the country, including in Boston, New York City, Rochester, New York, New Jersey, Colorado, and Los Angeles. Recently, the Department announced a new Memorandum of Understanding to fully collaborate with Nevada on immigration enforcement, and the Mayor of Louisville revoked the city’s sanctuary policy after the Justice Department threatened legal action.
In August, St Paul Joined Fresno, CA in Challenging Denial of Federal Funding
National & Minnesota Report
We have been wondering how much money St Paul is losing to the federal government. $262 million is the starting point. Seems like the city of St Paul as an employer could withhold and escrow the money they send to Washington, DC through the federal withholding’s and encourage other states to do the same.
SAINT PAUL – Today, Mayor Melvin Carter announced that Saint Paul joined a federal lawsuit led by the City of Fresno, Calif., seeking to stop the enforcement of unlawful executive orders that risk the loss of substantial grant funding for the City.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, among other agencies, have threatened to withhold, rescind, or cut grant funding from communities to force compliance with a presidential agenda, rather than the needs and priorities of local municipalities. This lawsuit also challenges attempts by political appointees to exercise discretion over who receives grant funding.
“We are taking decisive action to protect our access to critical funding that ensures our ability to administer programs that support the health, safety, and economic well-being of our community,” Mayor Carter said. “Once again, what our residents pay into the federal tax base must come back to benefit our community—not be weaponized for political gain.”
The City of Saint Paul relies on about $262 million in receivable federal funding to support critical investments in emergency response, infrastructure, housing, and public and social services—about $197.3 million of which is currently under contract. Of those dollars already under contract, roughly $144.6 million accounts for one-time capital investment projects and the remaining $52.6 million supports ongoing programs and department operations.
Another $64.9 million is in the post-award phase of establishing workplans and executing contracts. The city has also applied for an additional $64.2 million in federal grants.
Major initial impacts include:
- Unable to finalize contracts and distribute already-awarded funding for proven safety measures across 34 miles of High Injury Network and at over 70 intersections.
- Unable to apply for funding to replace the eastbound Kellogg Bridge, which is the City’s highest priority infrastructure improvement project.
- Unable to finalize contracts and distribute already-awarded funding to conduct an asset scan of City-owned properties, critical to establishing an asset management initiative that reimagines uses for unused or under-utilized real estate.
- Severely limiting capacity to invest in affordable housing, economic development, and neighborhood District Councils.
- Potential loss of year-round youth employment programs like Right Track, which serves youth from low-income neighborhoods and opens the door for internships.
“This action was necessary to prevent enforcement of coercive and unlawful conditions that violate the separation of powers and due process, and will cause irreparable harm to the City of Saint Paul and our residents,” said City Attorney Lyndsey Olson.
Protecting St. Paul: A Local Response to Federal Immigration Overreach
National & Minnesota Report
St Paul has a historical foundation with the Federal government which warrants us to learn from the Prohibition Era.
During Prohibition (1920–1933), St. Paul became infamous for its “O’Connor System” — an informal agreement between local officials against federal authorities. Under this arrangement:
Criminals were allowed to live in or pass through St. Paul if they agreed not to commit crimes within the city.
Local police deliberately limited information sharing or any cooperation with federal agents, prioritizing local peace over federal enforcement agendas.
While legally murky and ethically problematic, this shows that St. Paul has historically exercised autonomy in choosing how to cooperate (or not) with federal mandates when it believed local peace and governance were at stake.
Today, St. Paul can channel that same principle—local control to protect local interests—but within the legal boundaries of the Constitution and federalism.
St. Paul needs a legal framework and a reliance on local autonomy.
St. Paul can lawfully resist overreach by relying on:
- 10th Amendment & Anti-Commandeering Doctrine
- The federal government cannot force local law enforcement to detain or hold individuals for ICE or DHS.
- St. Paul police and city officials should not honor immigration detainers unless supported by a judicial warrant.
- Limit Cooperation Without Obstruction
- Federal agents can enforce federal laws, but St. Paul is not obligated to help.
This will effectively result enforce a “don’t ask, don’t share” policy where city employees do not collect or share immigration status unless required by law (as per 8 U.S.C. § 1373’s evolving interpretation).
How to Protect Federal Funding?
Under the Spending Clause, the federal government cannot impose coercive grant conditions unrelated to the purpose of the funds.
St. Paul is already suing over this issue.
Maintain the lawsuit with Fresno and expand it if needed.
Document all harm caused by federal threats to funding.
Lobby Congress to create legislation protecting sanctuary jurisdictions.
Plan of Action: A Six-Point Local Strategy
- Affirm Sanctuary Policies Through City Ordinance
- Strengthen local law that prohibits city employees (including police) from inquiring about immigration status.
- Create clear firewalls between city services and federal immigration enforcement.
- Establish a Legal Defense Fund
- Allocate city funds (or partner with nonprofits) to create a legal defense fund for immigrants and families facing ICE enforcement.
- Similar programs in cities like NYC have reduced deportation rates significantly.
In turn this establishes a need to:
- Train city employees on legal rights
- Provide mandatory training on the limits of federal power and how to interact with ICE without violating the law.
- Include housing inspectors, police, school employees, and health workers.
Appoint a Federal Compliance Review Task Force
By creating a local task force led by the City Attorney the city will be able to:
- Monitor federal interactions and report all activities.
- Ensure federal immigration enforcement does not violate constitutional rights.
- Advise city departments on compliance with court rulings.
Community Engagement & Transparency
Hold regular town halls and legal clinics in partnership with immigrant advocacy organizations.
Establish a hotline for residents to report ICE activity or unlawful detentions.
Intergovernmental Collaboration
Coordinate with other sanctuary jurisdictions (Minneapolis, Hennepin County, national partners like NYC and L.A.).
St. Paul needs to call upon other municipalities and in turn arshe resources, legal strategies, and media campaigns to amplify unified resistance.
The message is clear and should be framed in the following manner
- St. Paul faces a constitutional fight for local control.
- A moral imperative to protect all residents regardless of immigration status.
- A financial necessity, since the city’s $262 million in federal funds should not be leveraged as political punishment.
Conclusion: A Principled, Lawful Stand
St. Paul’s response should not be framed as defiance, but as a constitutionally grounded assertion of its rights under the Tenth Amendment. Just as it did during Prohibition—albeit more carefully and legally—St. Paul can choose not to be a passive enforcer of federal agendas that harm its communities.
By acting now, the city can create a model for other jurisdictions nationwide navigating the same legal and ethical challenges.
Walz Announces Reelection Bid
Minnesota Report
Today, Governor Tim Walz (DFL-MN) announced his unprecedented third term for office. He announced his reelection via a Youtube video. This effort will be a climb, but it might be easier if the Republicans nominate a weak candidate. Here are the current spate of candidates (10 Republicans and one gadfly DFL candidate) filed to contest Walz- Thomas Evenstad (R-MN), Scott Mitchell Jensen (R-MN), Jeff Johnson (R-MN), Adam J Kedrowski (R-MN), Brad Kohler (R-MN), Calvin Larson Jr (R-MN), Hannah P Nicollet (R-MN), Phillip Parrish (R-MN), Kendall Qualls (R-MN), Kristin Robbins (R-MN), Harley Swarm (R-MN) and Ole Savior (DFL-MN).
Initially, in 2018, Hennepin County Commissioner Jeff Johnson (R-MN) lost to Walz with 42.43% to 53.84%. In 2022, State Senator Dr Scott Jensen (R-MN) fell to with 44.61% compared to Walz’ 52.27%. These races have not been landslides by any measure.
This go round he will no longer have Lt Governor Peggy Flanagan (DFL-MN), since she is making her own bid for the US Senate. We are hearing a connection to Melissa Hortman’s district as a possible running mate in Brooklyn Park Mayor Hollies J. Winston (DFL). He has shown himself to be a forward thinking person, who has vigorously addressed crime in his community.
The climb will be uphill, but the slough will be a test of Walz’ personal mettle.
Reports of Russia Drones in Poland is a Significant Threat to NATO
International, National & Minnesota Report
Major international news outlets — including The Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera, and Reuters — are reporting on a serious security incident in Eastern Europe: Yesterday Poland temporarily shut down four of its airports — Warsaw Chopin, Modlin, Rzeszów–Jasionka, and Lublin — due to a significant airspace violation involving Russian drones.
The drones, reportedly launched from Belarus, are believed to be Geran-style reconnaissance UAVs, potentially Geran-2 (also known as “Gerbera”) variants. Unlike the explosive-laden Iranian Shahed drones used in Ukraine, these models appear to have been equipped primarily for surveillance purposes — likely to test NATO’s readiness and response thresholds.
The Polish Air Force responded swiftly, scrambling fighter jets and successfully intercepting and shooting down several of the drones. Notably, Poland received unexpected support from Belarusian sources who reportedly jammed the drones’ GPS signals — suggesting internal tensions or a covert gesture of de-escalation. Additionally, Italian aircraft were deployed to provide air support, highlighting the coordinated readiness among NATO allies.
This incursion underscores growing concerns about Russian attempts to probe NATO defenses, and it may serve as a strategic test of alliance cohesion. As such, it renews calls for NATO members — including the United States — to invoke Article 5, (the collective defence clause, stating that an armed attack against one NATO member is considered an attack against all, triggering each other member to assist the attacked nation) consultations to address the security of member states under threat.
This moment also intensifies diplomatic pressure regarding ongoing negotiations with Russia. There should be no ambiguity: Ukraine’s territorial integrity must remain non-negotiable, including Crimea. Concessions to Moscow would only embolden further aggression.
At this pivotal moment, US leadership must project resolve. Donald J Trump (R) should demonstrate a serious commitment to NATO’s collective defense principles and present a credible deterrent posture. America’s credibility on the world stage demands more than rhetoric; it demands action, unity, and clarity.
Walz Expected to Announce His Campaign Plans Next Week
Minnesota Report
Governor Tim Walz (DFL-MN) will announce his intentions for 2026 next week, so far there are not any early indicators, other than the veritable weakness of the field of Republicans, which have not won a statewide election since 2006.
The New House Leader is Zack Stephenson
Minnesota Report
After multiple rounds of voting, Rep Zack Stephenson (DFL–35A, Coon Rapids) has been elected to lead the DFL House Caucus. Whether he will serve as House Minority Leader or co-lead the chamber alongside Rep Harry Niska (R–31A, Ramsey) remains to be determined — a question that now rests in the hands of voters in the late Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman’s former district, HD 34B.
A special election for the pivotal seat will be held on November 4th, and the outcome could shift the balance of power in the Minnesota House. The race features Xp Lee, a state employee and current Brooklyn Park City Council member running as the DFL candidate, and Ruth Bittner, a Republican real estate agent also based in Brooklyn Park.
Stephenson, a lawyer by training, is widely regarded as a skilled legislative strategist. A close confidant of Hortman, he played a central role in advancing key policy priorities during her tenure — most notably leading the effort to legalize adult-use cannabis in Minnesota. His election signals both continuity and competence within the DFL ranks.
One particular aspect of his leadership we applaud is his intention to continue Hortman’s suburban-forward strategy, a cornerstone of DFL prior legislative success and an approach we have long supported. Now, in an increasingly polarized political landscape, strong suburban leadership rooted in pragmatism and policy discipline remains essential for effective governance in Minnesota.
Eight-Week Campaign Finance Reports in St Paul
Minnesota Report
With the conclusion of St. Paul’s pre-election campaign finance reporting period, the “money primary” has officially closed. As expected, Mayor Melvin Carter III (DFL) leads the field in fundraising — but a closer look at the data reveals more than just raw numbers. His support appears to be heavily institutional, powered by establishment backers and deep political roots.
Carter 8-week pre-election report.
Mayor Melvin Carter III (DFL)
|
Total contributions under $50 |
$5,784.40 |
|
Total contributions equal to or over $50 |
$210, 385.60 |
|
Expenditures |
$41,658.22 |
|
Account Balance (as of report end date) |
$212,715.77 |
Carter’s hosted a major fundraiser on September 9th at the home of his parents — former Ramsey County Commissioner, now Metropolitan Council member, Toni Carter (DFL) and retired St. Paul police officer Melvin Carter II. Based on the sponsor list, additional financial momentum is expected in future reports.
As an incumbent, Carter’s dominance in fundraising comes as no surprise. In a city where individual campaign contributions are capped at $1,000 per person, achieving six-figure totals requires broad and motivated networks — something Carter clearly retains. Yet, his financial strength contrasts sharply with growing dissatisfaction from many residents, particularly after his recent Budget Address, which proposed a 5.3% increase in the property tax levy.
Critics argue this increase unfairly burdens low- and middle-income homeowners, especially in economically challenged neighborhoods, while downtown St. Paul continues to struggle with visible decay and stalled revitalization. Notably, the mayor moved out of the city’s core several years ago, relocating to Ward 7 — a decision that some residents interpret as distancing from the city’s most pressing urban problems.
We encourage you to view our parody of the devastation in downtown of St Paul.
Yan Chen (DFL-St Paul)
|
Total contributions under $50 |
$906 |
|
Total contributions equal to or over $50 |
$156,203 |
|
Expenditures |
$115,338 |
|
Account Balance (as of report end date) |
$28,442 |
While Chen‘s eight week pre-election report shows strong financial activity, there are notable inconsistencies between reported contributions and expenditures — suggesting the likely presence of self-financing, which has yet to be fully detailed. A prominent donor on record is former City Council member Jane Prince.
As a non-establishment candidate, Chen faces a familiar challenge: fundraising without access to large political networks, donor lists, or party infrastructure. The uphill nature of her campaign is made steeper by the city’s political culture — one where outsider candidates, particularly women of color without extensive political lineage, face systemic hurdles.
Still, her performance so far demonstrates serious commitment, if not yet electoral traction.
Kaohly Her (DFL-St. Paul)
|
Total contributions under $50 |
$1,123.60 |
|
Total contributions equal to or over $50 |
$62,955.00 |
|
Expenditures |
$12,112.50 |
|
Account Balance (as of report end date) |
$63,082.10 |
Though a late entrant to the race, state Representative Kaohly Her is already making a significant impact — aided by extensive support from the Capitol’s well-wired donor base. Her pre-election report reads like a “who’s who” of the Minnesota lobbying world, with notable contributions from:
Gavin Hanson, Amanda Jansen, Allyson Hartle, Andrew Kozak, Amanda Duerr, Robyn Rowen, Ward Einess, Courtney Jasper, Barbara Cox, Amy Walstien, Rochelle Westlund, Sonnie Elliot, Patrick Connolly, Bill Harper, Brian Rice, Jerry Seck, Matthew Freeman, John Kingrey, Paul Winkelaar, Nancy Haas, Tom Poul — among others.
Her eight week pre-election report
With deep connections and a polished political presence, Her appears well-positioned to hold her own, even as she faces off against her former employer, Mayor Carter.
Mike Hilborn (Republican)
|
Total contributions under $50 |
$972.41 |
|
Total contributions equal to or over $50 |
$21,229.21 |
|
Expenditures |
$21,486.29 |
|
Account Balance (as of report end date) |
$714.63 |
As the sole Republican in the race, Mike Hilborn has struggled to gain financial momentum. He has neither leaned into self-financing nor mounted a visible fundraising push. In a city as deeply blue as St. Paul, where Democratic candidates dominate citywide contests, Hilborn’s campaign appears more symbolic than competitive — barring an unexpected shift in voter sentiment.
Hilborn eight week pre-election report.
Adam Dullinger (DSC – Democratic Socialist Caucus)
No campaign finance report has been filed by Adam Dullinger. In private conversations, he has indicated that he does not intend to spend more than $750, raising questions about whether this figure includes the $500 candidate filing fee. His grassroots campaign appears more issue-driven than electoral in nature.
Conclusion: Dollars Raised, But Questions Remain
Mayor Carter’s formidable fundraising shows the power of incumbency, but his critics — both inside and outside City Hall — argue money alone cannot paper over the policy frustrations felt in many corners of St. Paul. Her and Chen present distinct alternatives, each with different strengths and limitations. Hilborn and Dullinger may find resonance among niche constituencies, but as of now, the race remains Carter’s to lose — unless public discontent coalesces around a credible challenger with staying power.
As always, in politics and in St. Paul, money talks — but voters ultimately decide who gets to lead.
ABC-Anyone But Carter? A Clear Pattern Emerges in St. Paul’s Mayoral Race
Minnesota Report
Now that the first major hurdle — campaign finance disclosures — is out of the way, a central theme in the 2025 St. Paul mayoral race is becoming clearer: this is shaping up to be an “Anyone But Carter” election.
Every challenger in the race — Yan Chen (DFL–St. Paul), Kaohly Her (DFL–St. Paul), Mike Hilborn (R–St. Paul), and Adam Dullinger (DSC–St. Paul) — has staked a position in direct opposition to incumbent Mayor Melvin Carter III (DFL–St. Paul). While united in their criticism, their reasons for opposing the mayor differ significantly:
- Yan Chen emphasizes public safety and has positioned herself as a vocal opponent of property tax increases, calling for a more transparent and disciplined approach to budgeting.
- Kaohly Her, while acknowledging Carter’s proposed budget cuts, advocates for reprioritizing city services, particularly increasing funding for first responders and public safety infrastructure.
- Mike Hilborn offers more general critiques, arguing that “St. Paul keeps doing things that sound good but are unsustainable in the long term,” though he has yet to articulate a detailed alternative plan.
- Adam Dullinger, thus far, has offered little in the way of a concrete platform, and his messaging remains underdeveloped.
Ranked Choice Dynamics: A Path to Victory for the Anti-Carter Bloc?
Because this election will use Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), a strategic path to victory may lie in the formation of a “Coalition of the Unwilling to Support Carter” — a group of candidates who, while distinct in ideology, are willing to support one another as second-choice options.
Looking ahead, our electoral crystal ball suggests the following likely RCV scenario:
- Dullinger, with minimal visibility and funding, is likely to be eliminated first, leaving his small base of voters to select an alternate. Should he endorse another candidate — even informally — it could provide a modest but meaningful bump in second-round tabulations.
- Hilborn, as the lone Republican in a deep-blue city, is expected to be eliminated early as well. The real question is how large his vote share will be — and where those votes migrate upon redistribution.
- At that point, the field likely narrows to the three viable candidates: Carter, Chen, and Her. The most pivotal moment in the RCV process will be who ends up in second place after the first reallocation. If the third-place candidate publicly endorses a rival before ballots are cast, it could have a significant strategic impact on voter behavior.
Turning Point: The September 17th Debate
All eyes will be on the League of Women Voters–sponsored debate on September 17th — just two days before absentee voting begins. This event may prove to be a defining moment in the campaign, particularly if the candidates are pressed to go beyond rehearsed talking points.
One question we believe should be asked is both timely and revealing:
“If you fail to receive enough votes and are removed from consideration, who would you suggest your supporters rank as their second-choice?”
This question cuts to the heart of the RCV strategy and could shape how voters navigate their rankings, especially among the anti-Carter voting bloc.
To submit this — or any other question — to the League of Women Voters for the upcoming debate, email: lwvstpaul@lwvmn.org.
2018 State Fair Polls
Once again, we attended the Great-Minnesota-Get-Together and stopped by the legislative booths in the Education Building. We collected the Annual Polls from the House and Senate. As we have said, this often is an indicator of where the majorities legislative...
NPR Censors Opposition Comments on RCV
The NPR show 1A ran a program on Ranked Choice Voting today, and Checks & Balances Publisher Shawn Towle sought a spot on the panel. When called back by producer Andi McDaniel he was informed the panel was full but could submit a comment through the voicemail...
Corroborating Information on the Knoblach Story
Last year, we published a controversial and disturbing piece on House Ways & Means Chairman, Jim Knoblach (R-14B, St Cloud) regarding claims made by his daughter on her Facebook...
Pawlenty’s Second Deferral (He called us first with the news.)
Originally posted April 20, 2001 When the Vice-President of the United States calls someone who may believe is the person actually in charge, you stop and take notice. So seems to have been with the state House Majority Leader Tim Pawlenty (R – 38B,...
Does Checks & Balances Deserve Credit/Blame for Bachmann’s Political Rise?
Originally published April 04, 2000 Original Title: Another Change in Parties? KSTP talk radio host Jason Lewis openly speculated on his program about the possibility of other members of the legislature leaving the Republican Party for greener pastures with the DFL....
2017 House State Fair Poll
Minnesota Report Official Ballot Minnesota House of Representatives 2017 State Fair Poll Question 1. Should handheld cell phone use be illegal when operating a motor vehicle, except in emergency situations?...
Rep Jim Knoblach Facing Allegations of Sexual Abuse by Daughter
Some disturbing information has come to our attention, alleging Rep. Jim Knoblach (R-14B, St Cloud) engaged in an abusive relationship with his daughter Laura, which if true are damning. We have received screenshots from her personal Facebook page, which has since...
2016 House State Fair Poll
We at Checks & Balances are continuing our tradition of publishing the State Fair Polls found at the State Fair booths in the Education Building. Official Ballot Minnesota House of Representatives 2016 State Fair Poll Question 1. Do you support an increase in the...
Legislative Return/Special Session 2020
Minnesota Report We are hearing the legislature will likely be recalled for Special Session June 12th, which is just before Governor Tim Walz’ (DFL-MN) last peacetime emergency declaration is set to expire. In order to declare another one, he will need to receive...
Alcohol From Restaurant to You
Minnesota Report The House and the Senate have agreed to allow alcohol sales to be purchased from restaurants, during the COVID-19 crisis, but only beer and wine. The problem with this is with liquor stores still open the cost will be higher without an added benefit,...
Caution is the Best Medicine
Minnesota Report As Donald J Trump (R) continues to discuss his preparation and planning, combined with his pressure to open up the United States for business again on May 1st, he does so in a potential conflict with the state’s governors. Here in Minnesota, he will...
What to Expect from the Legislature Today?
Minnesota Report The agenda for the legislature is limited and focused on issues surrounding the COVID-19 Virus and there are a number of ways it is adversely affecting our state. A view of the times for consideration by the House Rules and Legislative Administration...
What the House Looks Like During COVID-19
Minnesota Report Watching yesterday’s proceedings of the Minnesota House of Representatives during the passage of extension of Worker’s Compensation Benefits to First-Responders and other personnel who contract COVID-19 in the course of doing their jobs, was an...
Subscribe to Checks and Balances
