STATE OF MINNESOTA
`
`COUNTY OF DAKOTA
`
`Linus A. Langer,
`
`Contestant,
`
`vs.
`
`Jane Dilley, Candidate for
`Greenvale Town Clerk,
`
`Contestee.
`
`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`DISTRICT COURT
`
`FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`
`Case Type: Civil Other/Misc.
`
`[CONTESTANT’S PROPOSED]
`
` FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
`OF LAW, ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
`AND JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`Court File No. 19HA-CV-22-795
`
`The above matter came on for a Court Trial before the Honorable David L. Knutson
`(remotely on the Zoom platform) at the Dakota County Courthouse, on June 7, 2022. Contestant
`Linus Langer was present with his attorney, Tyler S. Rew, Hvistendahl, Moersch, Dorsey &
`Hahn, P.A., 311 South Water Street, Northfield, Minnesota 55057. Contestee Jane Dilley did not
`appear, but was represented by her attorney, Chad D. Lemmons, Kelly and Lemmons, P.A.,
`Wycliff Street, Suite 200, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55114.
`At the Court Trial, the parties stipulated to submit the matter via simultaneous written
`submissions. The written submissions were originally due June 30, 2022. The submission
`deadline was extended by agreement of the parties to July 8, 2022. The Court took the matter
`under advisement on July 11, 2022. The parties further stipulated to the introduction of all
`exhibits which have been submitted to the Court.
`Based on the stipulated exhibits, the written submissions of the parties, and all other
`evidence properly before the Court, the Court makes the following:
`
`1
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`1.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`FINDINGS OF FACT
`Introduction
`Linus Langer (Langer) ran for the position of Township Clerk for Greenvale Township.
`The election was held on March 8, 2022. Jane Dilley (Dilley) was his opponent.
`According to the unofficial vote count, Dilley received two more votes than Langer.
`Langer has filed this challenge to the election results, under the authority of Chapter 209
`of the Minnesota Statutes. Langer submits that two individuals, Peter and Kelly Roehl,
`who voted in the election, were not residents of Greenvale Township on the date of the
`election. As a result, the Roehls’ votes must be excluded from the vote count, thereby
`changing the election results.
`
`Greenvale Township and the Election
`
`Greenvale Township is a township in Southwest Dakota County, Minnesota. Ex. I.
`On March 8, 2022, the Township held two elections, one for Township Supervisor and
`one for Township Clerk. Ex. 2. There were approximately 600 registered voters for the
`election, with 400 people voting.1 Id. Langer and Dilley were the only two candidates
`running for the position of Township Clerk. Id.
`The unofficial count for the Township Clerk election was 199 for Langer and 201 for
`Dilley. Id.
`A recount was initiated for Township Clerk on or about March 16, 2022. See Notice of
`Contest, para. 8. The recount produced the same result. The Board of Canvas declared
`Dilley as winner on or about March 23, 2022. See id. Langer timely filed the instant
`Contest in the district court, pursuant to Minnesota Statute section 209.021.2
`
`1Langer’s brother ran against Peter Roehl’s father, David Roehl, in the other election held
`on March 8, 2022. Ex. 2; Ex. 24, 57:3-58:4, Ex. 25, 49:4-49:24. David won the election by a
`count of 204 to 195. Ex. 2.
`
`2The statutory procedure followed by Langer was affirmed by this Court in its Order
`Denying Motion to Dismiss, dated June 17, 2022.
`
`2
`
`

`

`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`Langer challenges the number of legally cast votes in the March 8, 2022. See id, para 14.
`Langer asserts that assuming the illegally cast votes are discounted, Dilley no longer
`received the highest number of legally cast votes. See id, para. 16.
`
`Roehls - Background
`
`Langer challenges the residency of the Roehls at the time of the election. Langer asserts
`they were not residents of Greenvale Township at the time of the March 8, 2022 election.
`The parties (through counsel) deposed Ms. Roehl on May 24, 2022, and Mr. Roehl on
`June 2, 2022. Copies of their deposition transcripts are in the record, by agreement of the
`parties, as exhibits 24 and 25. The parties have submitted deposition transcripts in lieu of
`the Roehls’ live testimony.
`The Roehl family is comprised of Peter Roehl (age 46) and Kelly Roehl (age 44). Ex. 25,
`7:11-12; Ex. 24, 7:9-15. The two have been married since February 4, 2006. Ex. 25,
`7:25. They have three children together, ages 15, 13, and 7. Ex. 24, 7:22-8:7; Ex. 25, 8:1-
`8. The children attend school in Randolph and Castle Rock. Ex. 24, 8:12-19; Ex. 25,
`8:11-16.
`The Roehls own several businesses, including the following with the addresses submitted
`to the Minnesota Secretary of State:
`•
`B & D Wood Recycling & Composting, Inc. Ex. 22;
`•
`Registered Office Address:
`•
`22075 Kanabec Avenue, Morristown, MN 55052. Id.
`Roehl Construction, Inc. Ex. 14;
`•
`CEO and Principal Office Address:
`•
`22075 Kanabec Avenue, Morristown, MN 55052. Id.
`Registered Office Address:
`•
`28410 Foilage Avenue, Northfield, MN 55057. Id.
`Roehl Holdings, LLC. Ex. 15;
`•
`Registered Office Address
`•
`22075 Kanabec Avenue, Morristown, MN 55052. Id.
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`3
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`•
`
`Devil’s Creek Ranch, LLC. Ex. 23
`•
`Registered Office Address and Mailing Address:
`•
`22075 Kanabec Avenue, Morristown, MN 55052. Id.
`The Roehls work at their businesses. Ex. 24, 13:5-18; Ex. 25, 10:23-11:14.
`The Roehls owned a home located at 22075 Kanabec Avenue, Morristown, MN 55052.
`Ex. 13. The property was sold on October 27, 2022. Id.
`The Roehls bought a sixty-two acre parcel of property located at 11713 Bagley Avenue,
`Dundas, MN 55019, on August 30, 2021. Ex. 12.
`The Roehls also own property in Askov, MN. Ex. 24, 21:10-22:10, Ex. 25, 32:9-32:19.
`
`11.
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`Roehls - Alleged Residence
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`The Roehls claim to live together as a family at 6502 280th Street West, Northfield, MN
`55057, which is within Greenvale. Ex. 24, 14:15-17; Ex. 25, 7:14-17. They claim to
`have moved in “fully” around in the fall of 2021. Ex. 24, 32:20-33:13, Ex. 25, 43:1-6.
`The Roehls moved there only as temporary measure and had intentions of moving or
`building elsewhere. Ex. 24, 19:10-19; Ex. 25, 43:16-22.
`Their alleged residence is near the intersection of Foilage Avenue and 280th Street West,
`in a rural setting north of Northfield. See Exs. 3-4. The alleged residence is within
`Greenvale Township.
`6502 280th Street West, Northfield, MN 55057 is a property with several buildings on it.
`See Exs.. 3-11. Peter Roehl’s sister, Katherine, owns a manufactured home located on the
`property. Ex. 5. The land is owned by Roehl Holding’s, LLC. Ex. 6. 3
`18. More specifically, the Roehls’ alleged residence is an apartment located above B & D
`Wood Recycling & Composting’s principal place of business. The Roehls claim the
`apartment is on the west side of the building. An outside wall of the apartment is shown
`in Exhibit 7, above the vehicles.
`
`3The picture shown in exhibit 6 is a mistake. It wrongly depicts Katherine’s manufactured
`home. Ex. 24, 29:23-30:5; Ex. 25, 38:30-39:7.
`
`4
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`The alleged apartment is around 1000 square feet, with two bedrooms and one bathroom.
`Ex. 24, 34:3-7; Ex. 25, 42:12-19. The family sleeps in bunkbeds. Ex. 24, 37:18-37:24.
`There is no record of an apartment located at 6502 280th Street West, Northfield, MN
`55057. Ex. 6. Dakota County property records list the building as “COMMERCIAL -
`PREFERRED” and “NON HOMESTEAD.” Id. Property records also list the building
`type as “SHED” or “EQUIP.” Id. It does not say there are any bedrooms or bathrooms at
`the property. Id.
`6502 280th Street West, MN 55057, is a valid address with the U.S. Postal Service and
`can receive mail. Ex. 11; Ex. 24, 50:19-51:1, Ex. 25, 46:11-47:6.
`Despite this, the Roehls utilize a P.O. Box in Castle Rock, MN. They listed it as their
`mailing address to obtain their absentee voting ballot. Ex. 16. Peter confirmed its use in
`another legal matter in January of 2022. Ex. 19. The P.O. Box was also identified as an
`address in a report produced by a private investigator. Exs. 20-21.
`The Roehls claim to have lived at 6502 280th Street West since the Fall of 2021; however,
`there are conflicting stories of whether the Roehls have stayed elsewhere since the Fall of
`2021. Kelly testified that no one from the family has stayed overnight anywhere else
`besides their alleged residence. Ex. 24, 23:11-24:4. Peter testified that they have stayed
`elsewhere multiple times. Ex. 25, 32:22-35:6.
`The Roehls state that their shed apartment4 underwent had some renovations, namely a
`new septic system, central air, and forced air hearing. Ex. 24, 36:1-37:16; Ex. 25 61:11-
`63:24. The motivations of the renovations are unclear. Peter originally stated that no
`renovations or repairs had taken place at the shed. Ex. 25, 44:9. Peter went on the say that
`any renovations needed to be done regardless of them living there. Ex. 25 61:11-63:24.
`Kelly made it appear the renovations were done for the family to live there. . Ex. 24,
`76:16-78:13.
`
`4The Roehl’s alleged residence will be referred to as the “shed” consistent with its
`reference during the Roehl’s depositions.
`
`5
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`Roehls - Proof of Residence
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`There are several documents which Dilley asserts goes to prove the Roehls’ residence for
`the election, chiefly, Notices of Polling Place for the Roehls (Exs. 26-27) and the Roehls’
`Driver Licenses (Exs. 28-29)
`Peter renewed his licensed on February 14, 2022. Ex. 17. Kelly renewed her license on
`February 28, 2022. Ex. 18.
`Peter and Kelly obtained their absentee ballot application on the same date, February 23,
`2022. Ex. 16.
`Peter and Kelly’s Notices of Polling Places were not issued until March 17, 2022, after
`the election took place. Exs. 26-27.
`Peter and Kelly offered an Instacart receipt for a grocery delivery service. Ex. 30. This
`receipt depicts three orders of various grocery items, from December 14, 2021, January
`19, 2022, and February 10, 2022, that were all delivered to the shed.
`
`Roehls - Candidates and Voting
`
`Peter’s father and Kelly’s father-in-law, David Roehl, also had an election on March 8,
`2022. Ex. 2; Ex. 24, 57:3-58:4, Ex. 25, 49:4-49:24. David Roehl defeated Gregory Langer
`for the position of Township Supervisor. Ex. 2. Gregory Langer is Langer’s brother. Ex.
`2; Ex. 24, 57:3-58:4, Ex. 25, 49:4-49:24.
`Kelly stated that she would rather have Dilley as Township Clerk. Ex. 24, 62:11-63:2.
`Kelly has also stated that the Langers are “evil” and that she would do what ever she can
`to help Dilley. Ex. 31. Kelly stated that her feelings for Langer stem back from well
`before the election on March 8th and she doesn’t think he is a very good Township Clerk.
`Ex. 24, 61:10-62:19. Peter did nots share his opinions about the candidates from either
`election. Ex. 25, 48:25-55:8.
`
`6
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`Issues with Residence
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`There is overwhelming evidence that the Roehls were not actually residents of Greenvale
`Township for voting purposes of the March 8, 2022 election.
`None of the Roehl’s four businesses listed or mentioned 6502 280th Street West as an
`address. See Exs. 14-15, 22-23. This is confirmed by both Peter and Kelly’s deposition
`testimony. Ex. 24, 89:14-90:10; Ex. 25, 11:23-18:1. If the Roehls planned to live where
`they claim, it would seem they would take the time to list it as an address for at least one
`of their businesses, especially when their livelihood depends on their businesses.
`Even though the Roehls are able to receive mail at their alleged residence, they choose
`not to do so. Instead, they primarily use a P.O. Box in Castle Rock. Ex. 24, 50:10-52:13;
`Ex. 25, 46:2-46:22. The Roehls argument of “ease” is not persuading. It is logical that
`the most convenient place to deliver mail is one’s own residence. Even if mail is mixed
`together with another individual’s mail, it is Peter’s own sister. It would not be difficult to
`ask one’s sibling for their own mail, certainly not more so than maintaining and driving to
`a P.O. Box. The Roehls held the P.O. Box in Castle Rock out their address more than the
`6502 280th Street West Address. It was listed in court filings (See Ex. 19) and even used
`on their absentee voter application. See Ex. 16.
`Aside from the manufactured home, which the Roehls do not claim to reside in, there is
`no record or indication of a residential building of any kind being located at 6502 280th
`Street West, Northfield, MN 55057. No records list so much as bathroom at that address.
`Without any official record or pictures of a residential building, there is nothing to verify
`the Roehl’s claim of an apartment located in a shed above a business.
`The Roehls claim that their family of five, with three children, live in a 1,000 square foot,
`two bedroom, one bathroom, apartment may be true. Again, there is no proof of any
`apartment or living quarter at this residence. However, even if it is true, this Court would
`be hard-pressed to believe that would be nothing more a temporary living situation, akin
`to staying in a hotel. The Roehl’s confirmed the shed was only meant to be temporary and
`they had plans to move elsewhere. Ex. 24, 19:10-19; Ex. 25, 43:16-22. There is also
`inconsistency in whether or not the Roehls have stayed elsewhere since the Fall of 2021.
`
`7
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Compare Ex. 24, 23:11-24:4 with Ex. 25, 32:22-35:6. The Roehls also had plenty of
`other properties at their disposal, including the one on Bagley Avenue and in Askov.
`It is concerning to this Court that the Roehls renewed their driver’s licenses a few weeks
`before the March 8th election. If the Roehls really did move into the shed in the fall of
`2021, with a genuine intent to remain there, they should have updated their license
`information at that time. It appears they updated their address, just for purposes of voting
`in the March 8th, 2022 election. Moreover, Kelly’s driver’s license was not updated until
`after she obtained her absentee voter application. Compare Ex. 16 with Ex. 19. Kelly
`obtained an absentee ballot application on February 23rd and renewed her driver license
`on February 28th.
`The alleged renovations performed at the shed provide no further proof residence. Kelly
`Roehl may have testified they made the place more inhabitable, but Peter’s testimony
`changed from there being no renovations (Ex. 25, 44:9) to then being that the place was
`habitable before and that any renovation needed to be done regardless if they moved in or
`not. Ex. 25 61:11-63:24.
`The Notices of Polling Place (Exs. 26-27) are not helpful for this matter. They were
`issued until after the election and do not in any way help demonstrate residency for the
`purposes of the March 8, 2022 election.
`The Instacart receipts (Ex. 30) also provide nothing to this matter. Simply receiving three
`orders at the shed over a three month period do not prove residence.
`The inconsistencies and trouble with the Roehls’ alleged address is also evident in the
`McDonald Reports (Exs. 20-21). The reports were performed by a private investigator
`hired to look into the addresses of the Roehls. The report showed that the Roehls have
`multiple addresses being used at this time. The most prevalent address appearing was not
`the 6502 280th Street West address. See Ex. 20-21.
`It also did not go unnoticed by this Court the words used in the email exchange between
`Dilley and Kelly Roehl on or about April 7-19, 2022. Kelly said, inter alia, things like
`“Langers . . . Just a pain in everyone’s ass,” “those Langers are evil - we’ll help you
`however we can!” These comments demonstrate the animosity towards Langer, along
`with, at the very least, enthusiasm to make sure Dilley won these election.
`
`8
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`The Court finds inconsistencies, unpersuasive excuses, clear biases, and a lack of
`credibility from the Roehls.
`Even assuming the Roehls currently have a physical presence in Greenvle Township, that
`is not the sole factor the Court uses to determine residence. The Roehls’ intent is as
`important as physical presence. The Court finds no intent to remain in Greenvale
`Township from any of the Roehls’ actions.
`
`Candidate Likely Voted For
`
`45.
`
`Here, there is little doubt as to who the Roehls cast their vote for in the March 8th
`election. Kelly Roehl all but admitted that she voted for Dilley. She said that Dilley
`would make a better clerk and that she did not like Langer. Ex. 24, 61:10-63:2. Kelly
`referred to the Langers as evil. Ex. 31. Kelly’s father-in-law, David Roehl, ran against
`Langer’s brother, Gregory, in the March 8th election for Township Supervisor. She called
`both Langers evil. If she voted against one Langer in one election, she likely voted against
`the Langer in the other one. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that Kelly
`Roehl voted for Dilley, not Langer.
`46. While Peter did not provide the same level of commentary that Kelly did, it is evident that
`he likely cast his vote for Dilley and not Langer. Peter’s father David ran in the other
`election. Similar to Kelly, if Peter voted against one Langer, he likely voted against the
`other. His wife called both of them evil. There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to
`infer that Peter Roehl voted for Dilley and not Langer.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, THE COURT MAKES THE
`FOLLOWING:
`
`CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
`
`Roehls’ Residence
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Minnesota Statute section 201.016, subdivision 1, provides that an eligible voter may
`vote only in the precinct in which the voter maintains residence. The residence of a voter
`shall be determined in accordance with section 200.031.
`
`Minnesota Statute section 200.031 (1)-(13) states that: Residence shall be determined in
`accordance with the following principles, so far as they be applicable to the facts of the
`case:
`
`(1) The residence of an individual is in the precinct where the individual's home is
`located, from which the individual has no present intention of moving, and to which,
`whenever the individual is absent, the individual intends to return.
`
`(2) An individual does not lose residence if the individual leaves home to live temporarily
`in another state or precinct.
`
`(3) An individual does not acquire a residence in any precinct of this state if the
`individual is living there only temporarily, without the intention of making that precinct
`home.
`
`(4) If an individual goes into another state or precinct with the intention of making it
`home or files an affidavit of residence there for election purposes, the individual loses
`residence in the former precinct.
`
`(5) If an individual moves to another state with the intention of living there for an
`
`10
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`indefinite period, the individual loses residence in this state, notwithstanding any
`intention to return at some indefinite future time.
`
`(6) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an individual's residence is located in the
`precinct where the individual's family lives, unless the individual's family is living in that
`precinct only temporarily.
`
`(7) If an individual's family lives in one precinct and the individual lives or does business
`in another, the individual's residence is located in the precinct where the individual's
`family lives, unless the individual establishes a home in the other precinct and intends to
`remain there, with or without the individual's family.
`
`(8) The residence of a single individual is in the precinct where the individual lives and
`usually sleeps.
`
`(9) The mere intention to acquire a new residence, is not sufficient to acquire a new
`residence, unless the individual moves to that location; moving to a new location is not
`sufficient to acquire a new residence unless the individual intends to remain there.
`
`(10) The residence of an individual who is working temporarily in any precinct of this
`state is in the precinct where the individual's permanent home is located.
`
`(11) The residence of an individual who is living permanently in a soldiers' home or
`nursing home is in the precinct where the home is located.
`
`(12) If an individual's home lies in more than one precinct or political subdivision, the
`residence of the individual is in the precinct in which a majority of the room in which the
`individual usually sleeps is located.
`
`(13) If an individual's home is destroyed or rendered uninhabitable by fire or natural
`
`11
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`disaster, the individual does not lose residence in the precinct where the home is located
`if the individual intends to return to the home when it is reconstructed or made habitable.
`
`Determination of whether an individual is a resident of jurisdiction, for voting purposes,
`involves matters of fact and is to be addressed in the first instance to the trial court. Bell v.
`Gannaway, 227 N.W.2d 797, 801 (Minn. 1975). Residence, for the purpose of voting, is
`based on considerations of physical presence and intent. Id.; Piepho v. Burns, 652
`N.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn. 2002). “[N]either factor is determinative - each informs the other.
`That is, intent can be demonstrated in many ways, including but not limited to physical
`presence, and [the court] consider[s] physical presence to the extent that it manifests
`intent to reside in the district.” Piepho, 652 N.W.2d at 44.
`
`Certificate of proper canvassing board declaring result of election is prima facie evidence
`of such result, and puts on contestant burden of showing that person declared elected if
`not receive majority of legal votes. Kearin v. Roach, 381 N.W.2d 531, 533 (Minn. Ct.
`App. 1986); Berg v. Veit, 162 N.W. 522, 522 (Minn. 1917).
`
`Neither party disputes the proper canvassing board certified the election for Dilley. The
`burden is on Langer to show Dilley did not receive the highest number of legally cast
`votes. Langer has met his burden.
`
`Two principles from Minnesota Statute section 200.031 provide critical guidance to this
`Court:
`(3) An individual does not acquire a residence in any precinct of this state if the
`individual there only temporarily, without the intention of making that precinct home;
`and
`(9) [m]oving to a new location is not sufficient to acquire a new residence unless the
`individual intends to remain there.
`(Emphasis added).
`
`12
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
` It is clear the Roehls had no intention to remain at 6502 280th Street West and only
`moved there temporarily. They never updated any business addresses. They do not get
`mail at their alleged residence. They say in their testimony it is only temporary. They did
`not hold out to the world they intended to remain there. They may now claim to live their,
`but this Court needs more than post hoc, self-serving affirmations to be able to discern
`intent. See Minn. R. 8001.0300, subp. 2 stating that a taxpayer’s action are of more
`significance than his or her statements, used when evaluating domicile for tax purposes.
`
` As for the other principles discussed in section 200.031, subparts 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12,
`and 13, are inapplicable here. This case does not concern losing residency, it is whether
`the Roehls’ acquired residency in Greenvale Township.
`
`Subparts 1 and 6 further prove the Roehls did not obtain residency. Importantly, subpart 1
`contains, “has no present intention of moving.” As already discussed, The Roehls did
`have an intention to move. Next, subpart 6 states “unless the individual’s family is living
`in that precinct only temporarily.” Again, the Roehls only planned to live in Greenvale
`temporarily.
`
`Lastly, subpart 8, standing alone, cannot provide residency for the Roehls. Although the
`exact of details of where the Roehls have stayed is unclear, it would seem they do stay in
`Greenvale Township a majority of nights. Yet, this is one principle does not overcome all
`the other applicable ones that prove they are not residents of Greenvale Township.
`
`Residency is fact question. Based on the facts before this Court, Langer has carried his
`burden of proving that the Roehls were not residents of Greenvale Township for the
`March 8, 2022 election. As a result, the Roehls did not legally cast their ballots for the
`March 8, 2022 election.
`
`13
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`Roehls’ Voting
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`14.
`
`The Court’s analysis does not stop at determining residency. Where the contestant bases
`his contest on the fact that votes were cast by nonresidents, it is incumbent upon him to
`show that enough of those votes were cast for the contestee to change the result. Kearin v.
`Roach, 381 N.W.2d 531, 533 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986); Berg v. Veit, 162 N.W. 522, 522
`(Minn. 1917). Although for obvious reasons arising from the inviolable secrecy of the
`ballot, direct evidence as to how contested votes were cast is not allowed, circumstantial
`evidence is sufficient to sustain a contestant’s burden of proof if it has the requisite
`degree of persuasion. Kearin, 381 N.W.2d at 533.
`
`There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to determine that both Kelly and Peter Roehl
`voted for Dilley in the March 8, 2022 election
`
`Because the Roehls were not residents of Greenvale for the March 8th election, voted
`illegally, and likely voted for Dilley, their votes should be disregarded and Dilley’s total
`should be docked two votes. The correct count of the election should be 199-199. Thus,
`Dilley did not receive the highest number of legally cast votes. The election should be
`decided in accordance with Minnesota Statute section 204C.34.
`
`14
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,
`THE COURT MAKES THE FOLLOWING:
`
`ORDER OF THE COURT
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Two votes from the March 8, 2022 election shall be excluded from Contestee Jane
`Dilley’s, overall vote count.
`The overall count of the election shall be modified to reflect the correct count. The
`correct count shall be a total of 199 votes for Contestee, Jane Dilley, and 199 votes for
`Contestant, Linus Langer.
`Since the result of the election is a tie, it shall be decided in accordance with Minnesota
`Statute section 204C.034.
`The formal certification of the March 8, 2022 Greenvale Township election shall be
`stayed pending final resolution in accordance with the procedure set forth Minnesota
`Statute section 204C.034.
`All cost and fees of this Contest shall be paid by Dilley pursuant to Minnesota Statute
`section 209.07, subdivision 3. Langer shall submit necessary affidavits of costs and fees
`within ten days from the date of this Order, and the Court will issue order regarding costs
`and fees without the need for further hearing.
`
`15
`
`

`

`19HA-CV-22-795
`
`ORDER FOR JUDGMENT
`Let judgment be entered accordingly, immediately and without delay.
`
`BY THE COURT:
`
`__________________________________
`David L. Knutson
`Judge of the Dakota County District Court
`
`FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
`The Conclusions of Law and Orders as set forth in the foregoing collectively constitute
`the Final Judgment and Order of this Court.
`
`__________________________________
`County Court Administrator
`
`16
`
`