Local control on issues big and small is the backbone of Minnesota democracy

minnpost.com · Feb 20, 2026 · Collected from GDELT

Full Article

The detailed work of local governing bodies including city charter commissions, like this one in the city of Minneapolis shown in 2019, is at stake if federal control spreads. Credit: MinnPost photo by Jessica Lee Most people have no idea what a charter commission does. I was no different until I began serving on city commissions in Coon Rapids. I started on the city’s Safety Commission, and last April I was appointed to the Charter Commission. Lately, I have begun following proposals that would shift authority over Minnesota’s elections from state and local officials to the federal government. As I read through those proposals, it struck me: The work of charter commissions — and the principle behind them — is exactly what’s at stake in that debate: preserving local governance and protecting it from outside control. Charter commissions in Minnesota are responsible for reviewing and recommending changes to city charters — the documents that function as local constitutions. Members serve as volunteers appointed by district court judges, a structure designed to keep the commission insulated from electoral politics. Our charge is straightforward but important: To ensure that the city’s foundational governing document serves the interests of residents rather than partisan priorities or outside agendas. Charter commission work hardly glamorous The work itself is hardly glamorous. We review charter language, study governance structures and occasionally recommend amendments for voters to consider. Much of our time is spent reading dense legal documents, debating punctuation, and weighing whether certain authorities should rest with the mayor or the council. Anyone who has sat through a two-hour discussion about comma placement knows this is not the stuff of headlines. Most meetings pass without any public attention at all. My time on city commissions has underscored something essential: the details matter. Local control matters. And once a community transfers decision-making authority to a higher level of government, that authority is rarely reclaimed. That is why the current debate over who should control election administration resonates so strongly with me. The underlying principle is the same one charter commissions are designed to uphold: decisions ought to be made as close as possible to the people who are directly affected by them. Related: Charter Commission’s talk of overhauling Minneapolis city government recalls a 120-year history of debate Local election officials understand their communities in ways that cannot be replicated from a distance. They know which precincts consistently require additional voting machines because turnout is reliably high. They know which neighborhoods depend on multilingual ballot assistance. They know that the high school gym floods every spring and therefore cannot be used as a polling place. And they know that a longtime election judge —someone like a “Mrs. Johnson,” who has volunteered for decades — will catch small errors before they become problems. These are the kinds of details you only learn by living in a place and working alongside the people who make it run. Federal officials in Washington cannot know these local realities. They are responsible for administering broad national standards across a country of 330 million people and thousands of distinct local contexts. That scale makes nuance difficult, if not impossible. This isn’t about partisan advantage. People across the political spectrum can commit to local governance, and the same should be true for election administration. Whether you’re conservative or progressive, you should want election decisions made by people who answer directly to your community, not by distant officials you’ll never meet. Charter commissions routinely grapple with questions such as whether a mayor should have veto power, whether a city manager should be appointed or elected, and how boards and commissions ought to be structured. These issues do not have universally correct answers; they depend on each community’s values, history, and priorities. What works for Coon Rapids may not be the right approach for Minneapolis, Rochester or Duluth. The same is true for election administration. Minnesota’s decentralized system — where county auditors and city clerks manage elections according to state law — allows for local adaptation while maintaining statewide standards. It is not perfect, but it is accountable. If my county’s elections are poorly run, I know who to call. I can show up at their office. I can vote them out. If election control shifts to Washington, that accountability disappears. My community becomes one data point in a federal system where local concerns get lost in bureaucratic processes. Some argue that federal control ensures uniformity and prevents local manipulation. But uniformity is not always desirable, and centralizing power does not eliminate the risk of manipulation — it simply changes who has the ability to manipulate the system. At least with local control, problems are harder to hide and easier to fix. Charter commissions teach you to think long-term about governance structures. We do not make decisions based on who currently holds office or which party might benefit. We ask what system will serve this community well regardless of who is in charge? That is the question Minnesotans should ask about election administration. Do we want decisions made by local officials who live in our communities, know our needs, and answer directly to us? Or do we want those decisions made in Washington by people who have never set foot in our towns? I know which system better serves democracy. It is the same system charter commissions exist to protect: government closest to the people it serves. Local control is not just a slogan. It is a principle that matters in city charters, in election administration and in every decision about who gets to make the rules that govern our daily lives. The answer should always be: the people closest to home. Ken Uko serves on the Charter Commission for the city of Coon Rapids and previously served on the city’s Safety Commission. He is vice president of the Hoover Elementary Parent-Teacher Organization, coaches boys basketball for Minnesota Heat and runs a local small business.