Entenza voter ID complaint against Otto dismissed
A judicial panel has dismissed a complaint against State Auditor Rebecca Otto filed by her DFL primary opponent Matt Entenza's campaign.
The complaint was about a statement Otto made on her Facebook page about a vote in 2003 for a voter ID law when she was a state legislator. Otto said she didn't vote for it. But the campaign manager for Matt Entenza said she did and filed the complaint saying she violated state law by misrepresenting her record.
The Office of Administrative Hearings dismissed the case, saying there was no evidence to support the claim that Otto made her statement knowing it was false.
"There are no disputed facts in the case," the panel wrote, "only different interpretations of the meaning of the phrase 'voter ID.'"
Create a More Connected Minnesota
MPR News is your trusted resource for the news you need. With your support, MPR News brings accessible, courageous journalism and authentic conversation to everyone - free of paywalls and barriers. Your gift makes a difference.
Entenza has been trying to make Otto's votes for voter ID and for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage an issue in the DFL primary contest for State Auditor. Otto says she campaigned heavily against both during the 2012 campaign after the GOP-controlled Legislature put them on the ballot.
Otto praised the ruling.
“I have never voted for voter ID,” said Otto. “In fact, I campaigned against it. So I am pleased that the panel of judges agreed so resoundingly that they rejected all of Mr. Entenza’s claims. I will continue to focus on my job of watching out for the best interest of the taxpayers of Minnesota.”
UPDATED 6:00 p.m.
Entenza's campaign manager Dave Colling issued this statement:
“While the case was dismissed because of her confusion over the term 'Voter ID', it doesn’t change the fact that Rebecca Otto supported Voter ID. Matt along with the vast majority of his DFL colleagues- voted to eliminate Voter ID requirements. His stance on this issue has been consistent and unwavering.”
Here’s the ruling: