To the editor
To represent us in our District 32B, Republican Rep. Barrett must by law actually live in the district he represents. Many concerned citizens doubt Rep. Barrett’s claims that he resides in District 32B. I filed a petition with the MN Supreme Court because we believed he was not telling the truth. After a full hearing, the doubts remain. The judge noted that he had “questions about the veracity of Rep. Barrett’s testimony” and “questions about his primary residence” but ultimately concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Barrett resided outside of the district he represents.
The judge did not conclude that Barrett resides in District 32B; he noted that my “assertion that Rep. Barrett does not reside at Mentzer [in Lindstrom] is no less credible than Rep. Barrett’s assertion that he does.” However, the judge found that this was not sufficient to meet the very large burden of proof necessary to remove Barrett from the ballot.
We still do not know where Rep. Barrett resides. The judge concluded only that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that Barrett resides outside of District 32B in the home he is homesteading. We raised our concerns before the court and now the voters of District 32B must decide whether they can trust Rep. Barrett.
As voters consider their choices this fall, they should continue to ask Rep. Barrett for answers to the following, and consider his answers when making their decision in November:
– Why did he homestead as residential a house that he has testified under oath is not the home he is living in? Isn’t this illegal?
– Why doesn’t he have any trash, cable, TV, Internet or mail service at the residence he is supposed to be living in to represent us?
– Why doesn’t he interact with any of the neighbors in the neighborhood where he claims to live?
– Why was his own landlord unable to say with certainty that Barrett lives in the house he claims as his residence?