by Steve Timmer

Jul 9, 2026, 11:00 AM

Ron Latz did not win an endorsement

Why is the DFL supporting him in a primary contest?

At its convention on March 22^nd this year, the Minnesota Senate District 46 DFL convention failed to endorse a candidate; there were two: the incumbent Ron Latz, a long-time senator, and challenger Lynette Dumalag. Both candidates are running in the primary election on August 11, 2026. Early voting in the election is underway. District 46 includes parts of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, and Edina. Just for the record, I don’t live in the district.

A novel and nettlesome issue has arisen in the advocacy in this primary contest. The flyers are, well, flying, and the provenance of flyers in support of Ron Latz has come in for some substantial criticism. A couple of the flyers have been supplied to me, and I reproduce them here. I’ve also included one sent by Dumalag, just for comparison.

The first Latz support flyer hit the mailboxes on about June 23^rd and provides a disclaimer (an odd word in Minnesota campaign finance law, because it is really a claim of responsibility) that it is an “independent expenditure,” and that it was paid for by the Minnesota DFL Party.

The second Latz support flyer arrived in mailboxes around July 2^nd; its disclaimer says it was paid for by the Senate DFL Caucus, also claiming to be an “independent expenditure.” Interestingly, the return address is also the same Plato Boulevard address of the state DFL headquarters. Ron Latz is, of course, a voting member of the Senate DFL Caucus. One might argue that destroys the “independence” of the expenditure.

There has recently been a third flyer, also claimed to be from the Senate DFL Caucus; a photo of it is not included here.

Latz flyer 6-23 front

Latz flyer 6-23 back

Latz flyer 7-2 front

Latz flyer 7-2 back

Dumalag flyer front

Dumalag flyer back

– o O o –

These flyers have caused some raised eyebrows and sharp intakes of breath among some DFLers, including, of course, supporters of Lynette Dumalag. It is an article of faith among DFL party members and activists that the DFL party does not pick sides in primary contests. It is enshrined in a bylaw to Article 4, Section 2 of the DFL Constitution:

No Endorsement. An endorsing body that meets to consider an endorsement may adjourn without an endorsement or affirmatively vote for no endorsement. When this occurs for a given election, the DFL Party takes no official position on that election, and all party units, as well as community caucuses, must immediately cease providing support to candidates in that race. [emphasis added]

 That’s unambiguous, kind of like birthright citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment. It is obvious to me that the state DFL party broke its own rules when producing, paying for, and publishing the June 23^rd flyer. The July 2^nd flyer and the recent third one are a more interesting question, coming from the Senate DFL Caucus, but I think they should yield the same conclusion.

– o O o –

I will observe first that parties and their party units used to be prohibited from making “independent expenditures” at all. That changed in the 2010 session of the Legislature with this amendment to Minn. Stat. sec. 10A.01 subd. 18, the definition of Independent Expenditure.

This explains why partly, I think, that the legislative caucuses for both parties have become such fund-raising juggernauts. They can raise unlimited sums, must only disclose large contributions, and can spend unlimited amounts of money on a candidate, say, Ron Latz. The Senate DFL Caucus is functioning here as more of an incumbent protection association than anything else.

– o O o –

Okay, parties and their units can make independent expenditures; what’s a party unit? Is a party’s legislative caucus like the Senate DFL Caucus a party unit? Under state campaign finance law, unquestionably yes. Minn. Stat. sec. 10A, subd. 30:

Political party unit or party unit. “Political party unit” or “party unit” means the state committee, the party organization within a house of the legislature [emphasis added], or any other party organization designated by the chair of the political party in an annual certification of party units provided to the board.

This definition is important for aggregating contributions from various parts of a party to determine total contributions and limits on them. But it doesn’t necessarily determine what a party unit is for purposes of the bylaw prohibiting support for unendorsed candidates like Ron Latz. That may not make a lot of sense to you, but welcome to the lawyers’ world.

Under Article X of the DFL’s Constitution, party units are congressional and legislative endorsing units, so-called “organizing units” which overlap with endorsing units but are focused on delegates to conventions, especially in rural areas, and “special jurisdictions,” like Minneapolis, Duluth, and other cities. There are also “community caucuses,” such as the Environmental Caucus, Senior Caucus, etc. established by the DFL.

The Senate DFL Caucus is none of these. It is obviously part of the DFL, though; it has DFL in its name. Each of the members of the caucus claims the DFL escutcheon and they owe their positions to the organizing efforts of the DFL. As I stated earlier, the State of Minnesota considers the Senate DFL Caucus to be part of the DFL. The DFL should itself, too.

It isn’t that long ago that Ron Latz gave Congressmember Ilhan Omar “a talking to” about her advocacy for Palestinians. I think the people behind these Latz flyers need “a talking to” from state DFL leadership. That and a formal apology from the state DFL to Lynnette Dumalag, her supporters, and to DFLers in general for weighing in on the primary contest in District 46 after no endorsement was made.

I put the issue to the Constitution, Bylaws, and Rules Committee of the state party, but I’ve had no response.

– o O o –

I will remark, not merely in passing, that the current flap with Senator Latz and Lynette Dumalag is the second time in a year that the DFL has, in my estimation, put its thumb on the scale for an incumbent over a challenger in an endorsement or primary contest. I refer, naturally, to the DFL’s decision to strip Omar Fateh of his Minneapolis DFL endorsement for mayor over incumbent Jacob Frey. I wrote about that, too:

The state DFL spits on the Minneapolis DFL

These situations echo Princeston professor Kevin Kruse in his new article, Punching Left, where he talks about the “flurry of panic from self-styled moderates and centrists in the Democratic Party about the success of a few socialist candidates in party primaries.” I really recommend the professor’s short piece; he also responds directly to the “professional concern troll” Republican David Brooks who writes in The Atlantic that Democrats must distance themselves from the progressives in their party. Kruse says baloney and gives us a little history lesson as to why. Kruse is a historian.

I don’t call Fateh or Dumalag socialists, but they are clearly more progressive than the people they were or are challenging. That’s threatening to some people, but their fear contributes to the stasis of the Democrats and the DFL.