74° and Overcast
MINNEAPOLIMEDIA NEWS | Perryman Faces Questions Over National Guard Remarks as Senate District 14 Race Enters Final Weeks
Republican state Rep. Bernie Perryman initially described the possible presence of National Guard troops at polling places as a good idea, but later said she was responding to constituents rather than expressing a position she remembered holding.
ST. CLOUD, MN (October 14, 2026). Republican state Rep. Bernie Perryman, who is challenging DFL Sen. Aric Putnam for Minnesota Senate District 14, is facing renewed questions about comments she made during a June town hall concerning the possibility of National Guard troops being stationed at polling places during the November election.
A recording cited in an October 12 news release from the Minnesota Senate DFL Caucus captures Perryman discussing a rumor that President Donald Trump might send National Guard personnel to monitor polling locations in Minnesota.
“I don't know. I think it's good,” Perryman said while discussing the possibility, according to the recording excerpt supplied by the caucus.
But in a subsequent interview with St. Cloud Live, Perryman offered a different explanation. She said she did not remember holding that position and suggested her comments were an attempt to respond to people attending the town hall.
The disagreement has introduced a new election-security issue into the contest for Senate District 14, a race between two sitting legislators competing for a seat in the Minnesota Senate.
What Perryman Said at the June Town Hall
According to the recording excerpt released by the Senate DFL Caucus, Perryman discussed speculation that Trump might deploy the National Guard to Minnesota polling locations on Election Day.
She referred to the possibility of troops monitoring polling places and appeared to express approval of their presence.
The statement is significant because the role of military personnel in civilian elections is tightly restricted by federal law. Polling places are administered by state and local election authorities, not the military.
However, the recording excerpt does not establish that Perryman requested a deployment, had knowledge of an actual deployment plan or took official action to bring troops to polling locations.
The distinction matters: expressing apparent approval of a rumored proposal is different from participating in a government decision to implement it.
Perryman Offers a Different Explanation
In the St. Cloud Live interview cited by the caucus, Perryman said she did not recall having supported the idea.
She also said she had been recorded without knowing it.
Explaining her remarks, Perryman said people in the audience wanted such a presence and that she was trying to calm the discussion.
That explanation raises a question about how elected officials communicate with constituents when discussing sensitive matters involving voting rights and government authority.
The public record now contains two accounts: the recorded June remarks and Perryman's later explanation of what she intended.
The full context of the town hall, including the question she was answering and the discussion surrounding the excerpt, is relevant to evaluating the exchange fairly.
Putnam Criticizes the Earlier Remarks
Putnam, the incumbent DFL senator, responded in the October 12 caucus release by welcoming Perryman's apparent retreat from the position.
He emphasized that eligible voters should be able to participate without fear or intimidation.
Putnam's criticism places election administration and voter confidence among the issues being debated in the closing weeks of the campaign.
Because the release originated with the Senate DFL Caucus, its interpretation of Perryman's remarks should be understood as a political response from her opponent's party rather than an independent determination of her intentions.
What Federal Law Says About Troops at Polling Places
Federal law imposes substantial restrictions on the use of military personnel and armed federal agents at election sites.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 592, deploying troops or armed personnel to places where elections are held is generally prohibited, subject to narrow statutory exceptions. Other federal laws prohibit voter intimidation and improper military interference with elections.
These restrictions are intended to protect the civilian administration of elections and ensure that voters can cast ballots without coercion.
There is also an important distinction between federalized National Guard troops and National Guard personnel operating under state authority. The legal analysis depends on who commands the personnel, what they are ordered to do and the circumstances of any deployment.
The National Conference of State Legislatures and the Brennan Center for Justice have published explanations of the restrictions governing armed personnel at polling places.
Pentagon Says It Has No Plans to Deploy Troops to Polls
The controversy comes against the backdrop of national questions about whether federal troops might be used during the November 3 midterm elections.
In correspondence with U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Defense Department officials stated that the military had no plans to deploy active-duty troops or federalized National Guard personnel to polling sites or interfere with election materials.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, similarly affirmed that election administration and security are responsibilities of state and local authorities.
Those assurances do not resolve what Perryman intended by her June remarks, but they establish an important factual distinction: public speculation about a military presence at polling places should not be reported as an announced federal deployment.
A Closely Watched St. Cloud-Area Contest
Perryman currently serves in the Minnesota House and is seeking election to the Senate seat held by Putnam.
The candidates participated in an October 7 debate hosted by KVSC, St. Cloud Live and UTVS at St. Cloud State University.
Their discussion addressed issues including government accountability, immigration enforcement, education and state spending.
The dispute over Perryman's earlier town hall remarks adds election administration to the subjects receiving attention as voters consider the candidates' records and statements.
Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026.
What Remains Unanswered
The central unresolved question is how Perryman intended her June remarks to be understood.
Her recorded words conveyed apparent approval of the rumored National Guard presence. Her subsequent explanation suggests she was responding to the views of people attending the meeting rather than expressing a settled position.
A fuller account would benefit from the complete town hall recording and a direct response from Perryman addressing whether she supports or opposes stationing armed federal personnel at polling places.
The broader legal issue is less ambiguous: federal election law places strict limits on military involvement at voting sites, and federal defense officials have stated that they do not plan such a deployment for November.
For Minnesota voters, the controversy illustrates why precise statements from candidates matter when discussing election security, voting access and the authority of government agencies.
STAY CONNECTED TO MINNEAPOLIMEDIA
Local stories matter. Subscribe free to MinneapoliMedia and receive independent news, community reporting and important updates from Minneapolis, the North Metro and communities across Minnesota.
SUBSCRIBE FREE: https://minneapolimedia.town.news/subscribe
MinneapoliMedia | Community. Culture. Civic Life
