Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Cast Vote topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Winona County to reopen data request for 2024 cast‑vote records
Summary
A public commenter told the board she received cast‑vote records for 2022 only after more than two years and that the county denied her 2024 requests; she asked the board to reopen and fulfill the requests citing federal and state retention and public‑records rules.
Get email alerts on the Public Records Cast Vote topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At the start of the meeting, resident Chastity Saraki told the Winona County Board of Commissioners she had received cast‑vote records for the 2022 general election after a two‑year wait and urged the county to reopen her pending requests for 2024 primary and general election cast‑vote records.
Saraki told the board she received a portal message on April 25 from Assistant County Attorney Kranz saying county staff had “determined that there are no responsive records” for the 2024 primary request; Saraki said she disputed that determination and asked the board to ensure the county fulfills data requests in accordance with law.
“A cast vote record is the aggregated ballot‑level data on ballots tabulated, consisting of a single record for each ballot tabulated,” Saraki said. “This information was used to send our election results to the Minnesota secretary of state and is kept in the county's elections management system.” She also cited federal retention language and Minnesota statute, saying the data are public even if they have not been rendered into a shareable report.
Saraki asked that the county reopen her requests and produce the records “in accordance with state and federal law.” The board did not take formal action on the public comment during the meeting; board members acknowledged the comment but did not announce a follow‑up action on the record.
Assistant County Attorney Kranz was referenced in Saraki’s remarks as the county official who had responded through the data‑request portal; Kranz did not speak during the public comment period recorded in the transcript.
Because this was a public comment rather than an agenda item, no formal motion or vote was recorded on Saraki’s request. She identified the statutes she said applied in her remarks; the board asked staff to note the concern and move on to the agenda.

