Minneapolis, MN (January 15, 2021) -- A petition before the Supreme Court Of The United States in its case number 20-612 asserts that Minnesota Secretary Of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, denied a Republican candidate and at least one Minnesota voter equal protection in Minnesota’s presidential nomination primary election held in March 2020. Initially, Simon waived his right to respond. Taking an interest in the petition, the U.S. Supreme Court told Simon to recant his waiver and submit a response. On the day President Trump was impeached for inciting insurrection and undermining the integrity of democratic systems, the Democrat-led Minnesota Attorney General’s office filed Simon’s response asserting the claims made by the Republican petitioners regarding allegations of corruption in Minnesota’s March 2020 primary are “without merit” and “facially absurd.”

Relying on Simon’s public filings, the petition asserts the Republican Party of Minnesota allowed for delegates supportive of Roque “Rocky” De La Fuente to be elected in the primary. However, Simon only printed the name of De La Fuente’s competition on ballots while requiring De La Fuente’s name to be written-in. In so doing, Simon failed to give constructive notice to Jim Martin of Lake Elmo as to what phrase needed to be written-in so that Martin could advance the election of delegates supportive of De La Fuente. At the time Martin was casting his ballot, Simon had no intention to count any vote in a manner that would advance the election of De La Fuente’s delegates. Unlike Martin, supporters of De La Fuente’s competition were given constructive notice as to how the election of delegates supportive of that competing candidate are to be advanced. And, Simon advertised that he would count every ballot marked for De La Fuente’s competition in such a way that would advance the election of those delegates.

In December 2019, De La Fuente and Martin brought this issue of equal protection and freedom of association to the attention of the Minnesota Supreme Court. The pair asked the state’s highest court to order Simon’s printing of De La Fuente’s name on the ballot. If this were done, Martin could cast his ballot such that his vote would advance the election of delegates supportive of De La Fuente. Asking for the case to be expedited, Simon told the Minnesota high court the case is delaying his printing of the ballots and putting the election in jeopardy of being delayed. Oral arguments were heard on January 9, 2020, and De La Fuente and Martin’s request was denied later that same night. Relying on longstanding law that a political party has the authority to decide who may acquire its delegates, the Minnesota court determined that De La Fuente was not chosen by the Minnesota Republican Party as eligible to do so. Therefore, De La Fuente has no right to access the ballot and Simon is not to count any vote in a manner that would advance the election of delegates supportive of De La Fuente, like Martin’s.

Simon’s response on Wednesday repeats the line of argument presented in the Minnesota high court opinion. The response points out that, “states have a compelling interest in protecting its political parties’ associational rights,” and that “[t]he challenged Minnesota election statute exists to protect political parties’ fundamental right to freedom of association.” However, Simon’s response makes admissions that seem to undercut his position and in support of De La Fuente and Martin. In example, Simon makes clear the Minnesota Republican Party associated with De La Fuente as one of its candidates. And, Simon never disputed that the Minnesota Republican Party delegates supportive of De La Fuente were, in fact, eligible to be elected. Additionally, Simon’s response advises the Supreme Court of its Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985), holding in that the “Equal Protection Clause ‘is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.'”

“President Trump’s claims of corruption and fraud existing in our election systems rings true in Minnesota’s primary,” says Martin, “Rocky and I blew the whistle in December 2019 that voter suppression and candidate concealment were being used to rig Minnesota’s primary and allow the election to be stolen. Rocky was concealed as a candidate with whom the Minnesota Republican Party chose to associate. And, my ability to cast an effective ballot such that my vote would advance the election of delegates supportive of Rocky was suppressed. We stand as proof before the United States Supreme Court that President Trump’s claims of corruption in the 2020 election cycle existed in Minnesota’s primary.”

# # #

Note to reader: President Trump was De La Fuente’s competition in the 2020 primary. The blaming of Democrats for the woes of Republicans and the application of election fraud claims are intended as parody of current events.